A COAUTORIA EM ARTIGOS CIENTÍFICOS DE ADMINISTRAÇÃO: PERSPECTIVAS DE PESQUISADORES INTERNACIONAIS CO-AUTHORING SCIENTIFIC PAPERS IN MANAGEMENT: INTERNATIONAL ACADEMICS’ POINTS OF VIEW

Responding to institutional pressure to publish more papers, and in respected journals, management academics are seeking to increase their productivity by establishing co-authoring ties that speed up the process, from the initial stages of defining the research question to publication in a journal. Understanding the motives, benefits and hazards of co-authorship, especially using the experiences of highly reputed scholars, may help improve the efficiency and quality of research efforts. In this paper, we examine the responses to six questions sent to thirteen prolific international researchers, by email. In essence, we sought to understand such aspects as: the origins of co-authoring ties, the importance of having co-authors, the pitfalls of and methods for coordinating co-authorships, and what constitutes a contribution that warrants co-authorship. Results show that (1) international researchers evaluate their co-authorships positively, (2) many co-authorships emerge from prior supervision or personal proximity, more so than ties to the same institution, (3) the ordering of names is defined a priori and managed actively, (4) the benefits sought after are mainly specialization and complementary competences, (5) co-authorship is given based on actual contribution, albeit there are many forms of contribution, and (6) the pressure to publish, and an increasing difficulty of publishing in the top journals are the drivers of co-authorship. The analyses point to important insights for young Brazilian scholars.


Mike Peng, Universidade do Texas
In a world of high and increasing levels of specialization and in a world that wants more problem-solving from research, there will be more team-based research and hence more co-authorship. It makes sense: the law of requisite variety tells us that successful organizations need to mirror the complexity of their environment. Team-based research and multiple authorship will be more successful in this context. At the same time, this is why it is important to have team agreement on authorship.

Thomas D'Aunno, Universidade de Columbia
Productivity goes up when coauthors are involved.

Mark P. Sharfman
Most schools do not appropriately correct for number of authors. So two two-author papers is worth much more than one sole-authored paper. In addition, I find coauthoring helps the work. Each of us will see different things.

Philip Bromiley
It's critical for one's career. Two heads are nearly always better than one. Sometimes three is better too.

Joel Baum
Co-authors have been important sources of inspiration; they are great sounding boards throughout a project; and they help carry the load.
Given the complexities of theories and methodologies nowadays, most of us would need collaborations in much the same way corporations do with strategic alliances.

Massaki Kotabe, Universidade de Temple
Co-authorship can be a way of extending a scholar's network, or importing "intellectual capital" that the scholar does not have. For example, on empirical research projects, I usually co-author with doctoral students or ex-students who have methodological capabilities I do not possess. They produce and analyze the data, and I help package it into a paper. So, yes, co-authorship is important, and I think it can be helpful for organizational scholars in particular.

William McKinley
Co-authors add expertise and thus can improve the quality or scope of a study and papers. I'm not sure how co-authorship affects careers. It would be interesting to see an empirical study.

Thomas D'Aunno
Coauthors are selected on the basis of their interest in the same research question and availability of time.

Kim Cameron
A extensão da rede é referida por Zhi Huang, sustentando o trabalho de Rutledge e Karim (2008)  Se as parcerias têm vindo a aumentar gradativamente, como é que os pesquisadores escolhem os seus parceiros de pesquisa? Para aferir como os pesquisadores escolhem os seus coautores, questionamos: "You have a large number of articles published and some in co-authorship. How do you select your co-authors? Are they mostly from your University or other Universities, are they your PhD students? Or is your selection based on research proximity or friendship?" Embora substancialmente diversas, as respostas permitem entender que o laço de coautoria fundamental não é institucional. Esta evidência é relevante para diretores de programas e líderes de linha e grupos de pesquisa, sobre como os pesquisadores escolhem com quem querem trabalhar.
Para aferir como lidavam com a gestão da ordem de coautoria que os autores são listados no artigo, questionamos os pesquisadores: "What method or agreements do you and your co-authors follow to for setting the order of authorship in publications?". As respostas mostram que esta é uma preocupação resolvida logo no início do projeto de pesquisa, sendo claramente definida.
By prior agreement before starting a project.

Mike Peng
Someone has to take the lead in each project . . . agreed on in advance.

Kim Cameron
I typically insist on an early discussion about co-authorship, including sequence. My usual policy is that the first-listed author should write the first draft of the paper.

It varies. The project initiator is often first. Or, the data-provider (often these two go together). If collaborations continue, authorship will generally rotate across projects.
Some take on alphabetical -'reverse alphabetical by last name', 'alphabetical by first name', etc. I've never found this a contentious issue. Perhaps I've just been lucky.

Joel Baum
We use criteria from health care, e.g., the journal of the American Medical Association lists criteria for who can be an author. Mainly, the individuals who contribute the most to a paper intellectually are listed first or second. Sometimes, the senior author is listed last (if she/he is the principal investigator on a funded study).

Thomas D'Aunno
We try to make a fair assessment of who has done the heavy lifting in getting the paper written and published (who has "taken the lead"), and allocate first authorship to that person. The order of subsequent authors is then determined more or less randomly.

Andrew Zacharakis
The person with the first draft and the main idea is usually first author. Author ordership is determined by amount of contribution to the paper. The first author decision comes from who writes the largest percentage of the first draft. If there are more than 2 authors we negotiate based on relative contribution.
I try to put the junior folks first -it matters more to them. Some insist on either alphabetical or by contribution.

Philip Bromiley
It depends on who did the majority of work.

Mark Sharfman
I agree that these are tricky issues. The main thing in my mind is to be very clear before the project begins on what rules you will use to determine authorship and its order. The main thing is to be transparent and consistent.

Thomas D'Aunno
Several things I find critical. First, everything should be agreed upon at the beginning. There are no rules other than getting some agreement early and the lead author has the most say in who stays on the paper and who is dropped.

Mike
An author has to make meaningful contributions as perceived by other authors.

Main questions in my mind are: has an individual made a substantial contribution
to one or more of the following: research idea/questions; conceptual model approach; literature review; methods; data analysis/interpretation. If so, then authorship should be considered.

Thomas D'Aunno
For me in order to be considered an author someone has to make a meaningful contribution to the development of the theoretical model, the research design or the discussion. If there is a particularly difficult analytic issue that someone solves he/she should be included. Data collection, data collection, standard analytical work does not constitute a sufficient contribution to warrant authorship.

Mark P. Sharfman
An author needs to make substantive contributions to a paper, including ideas and analysis. In practice, this is often loosely treated. This question can be looked at from why you invite one to be your coauthor. The reason often is that you think that this person can help develop the paper substantively instead of just copy-editing or collecting some data. But, again, this is based on subjective judgements.
Significant contribution. I've been asked many times to co-author papers that are mostly complete (and I've just provided a friendly review). I wouldn't accept co-authorship of that paper. I need to make a significant contribution and have an imprint on the paper.

Andrew Zacharakis
Valuable ideas that enhance the paper, or at least contribution of work that moves the paper forward (that could be simply cleaning the data and running the model).

Robert Wiseman
Someone who makes a meaningful contribution to the successful acceptance of a paper for publication. Contributions can take many forms.

I used to believe that an individual should be listed as a co-author only if (s)he had
actually written part of the paper. In recent years, however, my standards have changed, and I can see multiple roles that would qualify a person to be listed as a co-author. I am comfortable with co-authors whose main (or exclusive) contribution is providing the data, partly because data is such a precious commodity. Someone who has data analysis skills and applies those skills to produce publishable results would also be eligible for co-authorship, even if (s)he had done no writing. Maybe co-authorship is actually the wrong term to use. Maybe we should speak about "collaboratorship" in deciding whose name goes on a paper --though that is certainly a clunky term.
My long-term philosophy has been this: If I foresee that someone will devote at least 100 hours to a paper, I offer him/her co-authorship at the outset. If I need for someone issn 2358-0917 manuel aníbal silva portugal vasconcelos ferreira & fernando ribeiro serra ADMINISTR AÇÃO: ENSINO E PESQUISA RIO DE JANEIRO V. 16 No 4 P. 663-694 OUT NOV DEZ 2015 to spend 10-20 hours on a specialized task, I just pay them or ask them to do it as part of their assistantship responsibilities.

Donald Hambrick
Never had such an issue. Boundary seems pretty clear. My coauthors contribute to ideas, writing, data coding, analysis, reviewer responses, revisions, dissemination. Sometimes not all, but I'd say at least 2-3 of these tasks. RAs who code data, or colleagues who discuss ideas over lunch are not coauthors… tho they may become coauthors.

Joel Baum
I believe everyone who contributes should be an author. My doctoral students are always coauthors, never research assistants.