Solo vs. co-authoring

[AvidReader]

Sounds like you got more scholarship, the kind of scholarly engagement most long for, and moral support. What a deal!

Yes indeed! But I also acknowledge that the choice and personality of co-author likely makes a huge difference. I was wonderfully lucky with mine.

AR.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Bumping this to add one more challenge of co-authoring: Journal lists. My colleague is in another university in a department with a strict journal list. We are in adjacent but not identical fields and have a paper that is more in my area. The result is that there are few journals that make sense for our paper but that are also on the list. 

[Puget]

Bumping this to add one more challenge of co-authoring: Journal lists. My colleague is in another university in a department with a strict journal list. We are in adjacent but not identical fields and have a paper that is more in my area. The result is that there are few journals that make sense for our paper but that are also on the list.

This is weird to me and might be very field specific-- I've never heard of a department having a "journal list", though of course everyone has ideas about what the best journals are for their subfield.

Certainly, it is good to talk to co-authors early in the process about target journals, if nothing else so you know what the word limit is.

[Parasaurolophus]

Bumping this to add one more challenge of co-authoring: Journal lists. My colleague is in another university in a department with a strict journal list. We are in adjacent but not identical fields and have a paper that is more in my area. The result is that there are few journals that make sense for our paper but that are also on the list.

This is weird to me and might be very field specific-- I've never heard of a department having a "journal list", though of course everyone has ideas about what the best journals are for their subfield.

Certainly, it is good to talk to co-authors early in the process about target journals, if nothing else so you know what the word limit is.

I've heard of occasional journal lists for some disciplines. IIRC it's more common in the UK, though, because of the REF (possibly also Australia, although my memory fails me on that point).


Although we don't have such lists, I do empathize with the problem; for one of my co-authored pieces, it really doesn't fit super well into either one of our fields' journals, so it's been a little tough to identify appropriate outlets. They exist, but they're also not really near the top of either field's journal hierarchies.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Bumping this to add one more challenge of co-authoring: Journal lists. My colleague is in another university in a department with a strict journal list. We are in adjacent but not identical fields and have a paper that is more in my area. The result is that there are few journals that make sense for our paper but that are also on the list.

This is weird to me and might be very field specific-- I've never heard of a department having a "journal list", though of course everyone has ideas about what the best journals are for their subfield.

Certainly, it is good to talk to co-authors early in the process about target journals, if nothing else so you know what the word limit is.

I've heard of occasional journal lists for some disciplines. IIRC it's more common in the UK, though, because of the REF (possibly also Australia, although my memory fails me on that point).


Although we don't have such lists, I do empathize with the problem; for one of my co-authored pieces, it really doesn't fit super well into either one of our fields' journals, so it's been a little tough to identify appropriate outlets. They exist, but they're also not really near the top of either field's journal hierarchies.

I think it is field specific: Common in some and basically unheard of in others. My colleague is in a field where lists are the norm and although they are allowed to publish in any journal, they only get credit for those on the list.

We discussed the issue in the past and had agreed on a few outlets to target, but it is becoming more of an issue as we have been rejected from those top outlets. My recollection is also that my colleague's attitude about the list was more lax when we started, but now the list is top of mind for whatever reason.

It is not the end of the world - I have plans to do additional papers with this person - but it is a minor annoyance. I also have not had this issue with other co-authors.

[Hibush]

While everyone has at least a tacit list of what constitutes a good journal in their field, having an approved list for a department could easily be problematic. My department would for sure run into trouble with the diversity equity and inclusion implications of choosing whose acceptable a priori.

[fizzycist]

These days, I prefer solo authoring, but I have many co-authored papers (most of them are). Its certainly the norm to have co-authors in the physical sciences, even for theory papers, but it isn't unheard of to have solo papers.

Curious to know why. Conscious decision or just result of circumstances? Also, do you find it harder to get motivated when nobody else is invested in a project/manuscript? Or is it easier because you don't have to compromise?

I'm not in a field or situation where solo authoring is feasible but I've always admired those who do.

[AJ_Katz]

Which do you prefer? Is there a norm in your field? If you do co-author, how do you find collaborators?

Co-authoring is the norm in my field and I have only one single-authored paper.  With co-authored papers, I try to get at least five per year and for the majority of those to have me listed as the corresponding author. 

Collaborations happen naturally, usually a result of a collaborative proposal with students and postdocs hired to do the work.  I am usually striving to have papers where my student is the first author and I am listed as the corresponding and last author. 

Our papers typically include multiple figures and tables depicting data that was collected over multiple years.  It is not possible for me to be a lead on those papers anymore since I am not the one doing the data collection or analysis now.  Although I enjoy writing papers, I like editing them more. 

[Ruralguy]

The last paper I wrote with a group caused me a bit of pain. They got frustrated that I took too long. I got upset that they got upset that I had a high teaching load. The paper was finally published with a much reduced number of folks from group because they quit on me because they thought I was taking too long. When I published it, they refused to acknowledge it as a "group" paper, so I sort of quietly "quit" a group that I was probably never really part of.
Since then, its been solo. Fewer books and papers, but ones I want to be doing. Would I collaborate again before retiring in a decade or so? Maybe with students or close colleagues/friends, but not across huge groups for which I only kinda sorta knwo a couple of the people. I've been full for a long time, and gotten some internal awards ( I mean stuff like annual research award, partly endowed professorship), so I sort of don't care anymore if I don't get "more." I'd like to. I'm not giving up. But if I am quirky and not really doing what I need to do to get the best internal awards and grants, then I can live with that,

[mamselle]

Humanities, sciences, or...?

(Sorry, I should remember but I get mixed up about people's fields, at times...)

M.

[Harlow2]

Enjoy both these days.  One of my former grad students is wonderful to work with and is now a true colleague. I also enjoy some solo work. One problem is that i have been working in a discipline that isn't really mine, though the essential content is, and stumbling some. Am thinking about returning to my original disciplinary area but will have to figure out how.