Thread by @CappaSnappa

In #atmoschem, collaborative field & lab campaigns are a great way to move science questions forward. But these studies create challenges for credit and coauthorship. Following conversations with @chemdelphine, here are a few thoughts about collaborative writing #academicchatter

1. In general, err on the side of generosity. People should be rewarded for their efforts. Lab and field measurements take a LOT of work - even operating commercial instruments requires extensive preparation, calibration, troubleshooting, and data analysis.

2. Coauthors should make meaningful contributions to a paper and authors should provide others with an opportunity to do so. Data collection often warrants co-authorship, but measurement makers should still contribute directly to the science by providing meaningful feedback

3. Also, the more complex a measurement, the more likely that a person(s) should be included as a co-author.The more that the story depends on a dataset, the more likely that the measurement makers should be included

4. For large collaborative studies, consider the integrative versus specialized nature of the work and whether yours is one of the early papers. More integrative (relying on many measurements) or earlier papers typically include study organizers + folks who led core measurements.

5. General contributions from everyone (e.g., helping to set up an inlet or moving boxes) are not by themselves sufficient to warrant co-authorship. Instead, such efforts should likely be acknowledged.

6. Same with many simple measurements - for #atmoschem studies, that often means temperature, RH, windspeed… Important measurements that should be Acknowledged, but not warranting coauthorship

7. If summer undergraduate students were involved, don’t forget their contributions! Check with their mentors about their specific contributions. When in doubt about co-authorship, reach out to your advisor and the PIs of instruments with data that you used.

8. Don’t forget to acknowledge funding agencies with grant numbers!

9. So now you have an author list, what do you do? How you go about engaging with co-authors will vary depending on the extent of their contribution or feedback on the manuscript. A key overarching principle is communication and transparency.

10. Engage potential co-authors early – sending a set of figures with captions and key points to coauthors early in the writing process is particularly constructive. It also helps ensure that no one else is writing something similar!

11. Once you and your PI have a solid draft, ask for co-author feedback. Give sufficient time (min. 2 weeks) to review & respond. Set a deadline, but be flexible, esp. over holidays. Emails sent Friday at 5pm may be missed – time your emails to arrive on Monday morning instead!

12. Consolidate co-author comments. Track changes to show updates in response to comments. If you don’t revise based on a comment, consider saying why in a comment (of course depends on the importance of a comment). Allow time for further comments/questions (at least 1 week)

13. Realize that you may need to go through multiple rounds with co-authors, if substantial questions arise. This is okay – engaged coauthors mean that you will have a stronger manuscript, which often translates to a smoother review process.

14. When ready to submit, provide a final draft to all co-authors and ask permission to submit (which is required by many journals). If you’ve engaged people early then not much time is needed here (e.g. 1-2 working days – but more time over holidays and weekends). Set a deadline

15. Share reviewer comments with co-authors once they are received, with a note that you will be working on addressing them. #reviewer2

16. Draft a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments and a track-changes version of your manuscript. Ask for help from coauthors early. Once the response and revised manuscript are ready, send these to your co-authors with at least a week to provide comments

17. Address any co-author comments on the responses or revisions. Depending on the nature of the comments, iterate and engage in discussion with particular co-authors.

18. Once ready to submit the revised draft, send a copy to all co-authors and ask permission (again, set a deadline: 1-2 working days is fine)

19. Resubmit and cross fingers.

20. Once ready, archive your data with a DOI! Even if you’re pulling data from a big archive, consider exporting data from your figures and archiving to make it easy for others to build on your work!

21. But what if I'm a coauthor, you ask? Be responsive. Provide meaningful feedback. Raise questions. Think like a reviewer. Catch typos! Realize that the lead author(s) may not agree with all of your suggestions, but that they should give them due consideration.

22. Finally, everyone should remember collaborative projects - and papers - are all about working together to do the best science possible!! Have fun and do good science.