co-authored publications?

[curious georgietta]

Since things are rather low-key on the board these days, I was hoping people wouldn't mind a question.

I'm curious to know how many of you have co-authored papers with faculty. Are these senior or junior faculty? Have you co-authored with peers? And have these been on topics of your own choosing or did you join an existing project or a project suggested by others in the group? Is this something you'd recommend others do? Why or why not?

If you haven't co-authored any papers, why not?

Thanks!

[pseudonym]

I have co-authored with both senior faculty members and peers. I began by co-authoring with peers because we complimented one another well--some of us had strengths in writing, reviewing research, and theory, while others of us had strengths in using advanced statistical techniques. We could each work on parts of the paper to build a great one. By far, however, the best experience came from co-authoring a paper with a senior faculty member who is a major player in the field. I learned a lot, particularly about making the paper stand out and discussing policy relevance. I'm quite content with my previous work, however, one disadvantage is that I had to put my own projects aside for awhile, and now I don't have a sole-authored publication. I highly recommend collaborating with senior faculty members if they will give you the credit you deserve and they work hard as mentors to show you the ropes with respect to building research and writing skills. I've heard that sometimes faculty members fall short of being excellent mentors, and that sometimes co-authorship means that you are left to write a paper on your own for the most part, yet the faculty member receives first authorship. Choose the faculty member well. Writing with peers is great, but if those peers have yet to publish, you could face having to hold on to the paper for a few years before the paper is publishable. Also, peers tend to give each other far too much slack in terms of deadlines. Looking back, I would have published with my mentor first, published a sole-authored paper next, then collaborated with peers. I hope this helps.

[curious georgietta]

Thanks, this is very helpful. Yes, I've heard others say as well that while working with peers can be really rewarding, it's easier to let deadlines slide and so completion of a manuscript can take a long time.

[socbaker]

I have only co-authored papers. My first was with my advisor, his colleague from another university, and her student. I was the second author. It was quite instructive to watch my advisor shepherd the paper through the publication process. I ran most of the statistics and he asked for my feedback on what he wrote every step of the way. I also wrote a few parts myself.
The second paper was with another group, in which I am the only grad student. The lead researcher in this group is always last author and the rest of us vie for position. I was third out of six on this paper, which caused a fair amount of tension within the group, though we all still have a collegial relationship.
I have two first-authored papers under review, one with my advisor and his colleague and one with two members of the other research group.
I also co-authored a book review with my secondary advisor.
These have all been positive experiences except for the author-order argument. I have learned a lot from working with experienced people. However, I have no solo authored work.

[damastes]

Co-authoring with someone that has a fair bit of experience in publishing is something I have found very helpful. There are many small things, from making sure you cover citations with possible reviewers to formatting tables for easy reading, that I learned from that process. Not to mention what I would call 'larger' things, like sorting wheat-from-chaff from rejection comments and successfully handling an r&r. I would certainly recommend it, if the opportunity arises, just for the learning experience.

Co-authoring with peers can be beneficial, especially if it can quicken review times, social capital, allow for specialization, etc. I would probably approach more from the perspective of 'is it in my best interest?'

Sole author papers do seem important, but I think the timing seems to vary widely. Its probably something that needs to be done before applying for tenure, but may not be as important for hiring in some departments. I have no clue, for example, if a second-author ASR is worth more than a nice first-author piece in a second tier journal. There are probably a lot variables that go into play that would not make this the deciding factor in a lot of jobs.

[hi]

I have both co-authored and single authored papers and it seems to me that people make a bigger deal about the single authored papers. Not sure if they are interested in the single author papers as a sign of academic independence or if it is an indication of many people's thought that co-authored papers (especially 2nd on) are hard to judge in terms of the amount of work credited to each author.

[anon]

Yeah, my sense is that there really is no rule for this stuff. It just depends on the department.

I know this sounds crazy, but there are departments out there that care more about quality than quantity. If you are applying to one of these, it all depends on how you "sell" a co-authored publication in your research statement. If the co-authored publication has nothing to do with your own work, it won't count for much. If you make it clear how your own work contributed to the article, it will count for more.

Of course, there are departments out there that just "count" articles. Good luck with those...