The sticky issue of authorship then arises. Should a writer author a work himself or herself? Should he / she co-write a work?

Going Solo

Most writers write from central areas of expertise. They have primary research and experience in a particular part of a field, a professional interest in that area, access to all the necessary information, and an ability to create all the informational substance and digital contents. In those situations, there are plenty of reasons to go solo—albeit with the proper okays and permissions releases.

Partnering

The case for co-authorship exists with some (or all) of the following pre-conditions. There must be shared areas of expertise; there should be complementary writing styles, with the ability to coordinate and cooperate, and there should be trust and respect in each other’s capabilities and perspectives.

Co-authors will not only need to agree with the paper’s stance, informational substance, tone, and imagery, but they will also have to address issues of the name order. First-authors (those listed first) have the most prestige and are often the most widely cited. The further down in a list of co-authors that a person’s name is, the less prestige and the less contribution there is. First-authorship suggests that that author did the most work and brought the most expertise to the writing. Sometimes, the one who got the funding as the principal investigator (PI) “pulls rank” and is listed first. The names then follow in descending order, with the one who contributed least listed last.

Some professionals—at risk to their own reputations—will use ghost-writers to write off-the-record. These people write without byline credit.

When Not to Co-Author

It seems unwise to co-author a work if there’s not a solid rationale to do so. If the work relationship is not solid and if the team members do not know each other, it may be risky to co-author with others. If there’s any potential for litigation and professional strife, it seems to be not worth it to proceed down this path.

In situations where a colleague is trying to pressure oneself to co-write or co-publish for a tenure report or for the “thrill” of publishing, that would be reason enough not to pursue that course. Published works have a way of being cited and remembered, especially in this digital age, and making that professional connection that may end up causing grief really makes no logical sense.

Saying Thanks

A professional thanks to colleagues and others who’ve contributed to a work is good practice, and it’s a good middle ground to acknowledge contributions without offering shared bylines.

(The next part deals with the written artifacts of academic publishing. This also addresses the typical publishing cycle and then the digital aspects of academic publishing.)