1 / 15

Co-authoring with academic colleagues: An insider’s view

Co-authoring with academic colleagues: An insider’s view. Professor Ruth Rentschler Deakin University Wednesday 8 June 2011. A seven step plan. Step 1: Identify the academic colleagues with whom you want to share ideas Step 2: Discuss face to face what you wish to do together

amos-myers
Download Presentation

Co-authoring with academic colleagues: An insider’s view

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Co-authoring with academic colleagues: An insider’s view Professor Ruth Rentschler Deakin University Wednesday 8 June 2011

  2. A seven step plan • Step 1: Identify the academic colleagues with whom you want to share ideas • Step 2: Discuss face to face what you wish to do together • Step 3: Discuss & determine authorship • Step 4: Define the scope of the paper • Step 5: Target the journal • Step 6: Target the article • Step 3: Discuss & determine authorship • Step 7: Continue to write

  3. Step 1: Identify the academic colleagues with whom you want to share ideas • Writing is a creative craft of collaboration through conversations, so … • Choose colleagues with whom you can work • Choose colleagues who know the research domain • Choose colleagues whose skill sets compliment yours • Consider a mentor or your supervisor

  4. Step 2: Discuss face to face what you bring to the table • What are our shared interests? • When are my co-authors available? • How do our skills compliment one another? • What pressures are we under? • How can we negotiate who does what? • How can we identify individual and team strengths? • Am I reliable, thorough and critical?

  5. Step 3: Discuss & determine authorship • Who creates the first draft of the paper? • How important is the paper to you and others? • Share first authorship in different iterations of the paper

  6. Step 4: Define the scope of the paper • Are we starting to write from scratch? • Are we seeking to expand an existing paper? • Do we need to collect more data? • What is our contribution to theory? • What is our contribution to practice?

  7. Step 4: Target the journal • What type of journal are we targeting? • Have you read the journal? • What is the “right” balance of contribution to theory and contribution to practice, given the journal we are targeting?

  8. An example of rejection … • I have now received three reviews of your paper, which you will find below. As you will see, unfortunately it has not met their rigorous standards in terms of theorisation or contribution. The reviewers have provided some useful comments which I believe should be helpful in moving forward with this paper and we hope that you will find them helpful. I am sorry to say, however, that we are unable to accept your article for publication in the journal.

  9. Step 6: Target the article • Have you read the journal? • Have you referred to its articles in your paper? • Are you extending theory, as developed in that journal? • Is your method appropriate for the journal? • Is that journal interested in Australian data?

  10. An example of revise and resubmit • I have now received three reviews of your paper. One review is negative and recommends reject, one is more positive suggesting revision and the final review recommends major revisions. • Specifically, it is an interesting contribution but the originality and value of the contribution is not clearly articulated. This requires serious thought. To help with this aspect, I would suggest you revise this paper throughout checking for sense, sentence-structure and logic and make sure that your arguments are absolutely clear. Embedding your scholarship in the appropriate literatures in a logical fashion (discussed below) would also help orient the reader.

  11. What to do when your co-authors are not committed? • Drop the project • Drop the author (beware of taking this step without explicit co-author approval) • Take the lead in advancing the paper (“carrying” an author) • Extend the time frame for submission • Lower your sights in terms of target journals • Incorporate new people to add value

  12. Two examples … Example 1 • I am afraid I have had a terrible shock. A family member died unexpectedly. I think it best if I bow out of this paper. Example 2 • I am working on it and will send it to you before the end of June. Sorry for the delay, I am conducting several research projects at the same time and was forced to reorganise priorities.

  13. Step 3: Discuss & determine authorship • Think about when you need to bring a new author into the project • Share revision following reviewer comments

  14. Step 7: Continue to write • Make a plan for each team member and the project as a whole • Set dates for completion of stages • Meet at the conclusion of each stage • Remember: Murphy’s Law applies!

  15. Sources • Babin, B.J. 2008 Scholarly Marketing Publication: The American Advantage, European Business Review 20(5): 370-383. • Perry, C., Carson, D. & Gilmore, A. 2003 Joining a conversation: Writing for EJM’s editors, reviewers and readers requires planning care and persistence, European Journal of Marketing 37(5/6): 652-667. • Polonsky, M. et al 1998 Perspectives on publishing: Advice for those just getting started Australasian Marketing Journal 6(2): 63-80. • Stewart, D. 2003 Academic Publishing in Marketing: Best and Worst Practices, European Business Review 20(5): 421-433.

More Related