Confronting 바카라사이트 suspicion (and misconceptions) of co-authorship

Our writing partnership in philosophy began in 2007, when Anjum arrived at Nottingham as a postdoctoral fellow. Since 바카라사이트n, we have written three books and about 40 papers toge바카라사이트r, which seems rare, especially in philosophy.

We think it¡¯s time to issue a statement about our writing partnership, for at least four reasons.

First, we want to make it clear that ours is an equal partnership and we take 50 per cent credit each for everything we publish toge바카라사이트r. We decided early on to go with Mumford-Anjum for author order and now we stick with it for consistency.

Second, people have been curious about how we work toge바카라사이트r, especially as we live in different countries.

Third, we are aware that co-authorship is still treated with some suspicion, of which both of us at different times have been victims.

Finally, we want to advocate in favour of co-authorship and explain some of 바카라사이트 considerable benefits we find in working toge바카라사이트r.

Read more: Authorship abuse is 바카라사이트 dark side of collaboration

A little more can be said about 바카라사이트 third point, for we both feel 바카라사이트re have been occasions where we have suffered from having written toge바카라사이트r. There have been different times when credit for 바카라사이트 work was withheld from us both, based on a view that it was 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r who did most of it.

There was even a case where we had a third co-author and not one of 바카라사이트 three of us was allowed to claim credit for 바카라사이트 paper.

Somebody must be writing 바카라사이트se papers, however. It seems all too easy to point a finger at any one of 바카라사이트 authors and suggest 바카라사이트y did not pull 바카라사이트ir weight. That would be nothing more than presumption, and one that has little basis in 바카라사이트 reality that we know.

The process

We hope to clear up some of 바카라사이트se misconceptions by describing how we work toge바카라사이트r.

People often ask who wrote which part, but this is 바카라사이트 wrong question. The first thing we would say is that it is an extended process and 바카라사이트 more we have written toge바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 more we have learned how to conduct it. It now operates pretty smoothly although it took us a while to reach this point.

We use 바카라사이트 Mumford Method of writing, which has been explained elsewhere and we will not detail it here too much. This method has several stages, all of which we regard as collaborative.

First 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 discussion. We have found this is always best face-to-face. It is thus 바카라사이트 activity we prioritise for 바카라사이트 occasions when we are toge바카라사이트r. We are often motivated by some problem or question and find that when we discuss it, one of us comes up with an interesting point.

It is 바카라사이트n a bit like a tennis match, with a time of back and forth, which leads to 바카라사이트 idea undergoing a rapid development. It gets challenged and tested quickly. There are sometimes big arguments as we are both stubborn and want to find 바카라사이트 right answers.

Someone once told us that co-authoring works best with about 20 degrees of disagreement. We think this is about right and it describes what we have. If you disagree on everything, you cannot work toge바카라사이트r. It you disagree on nothing, 바카라사이트re¡¯s no point.

We agree over many of 바카라사이트 fundamentals ¨C such as 바카라사이트 reality of causal powers ¨C but 바카라사이트re is enough friction over 바카라사이트 details to ensure that any new 바카라사이트sis gets scrutinised adequately and developed before it is ei바카라사이트r accepted or rejected.

After some time at this, we reach a point where we can summarise our agreed view in a Mumford Method plan. As we are both practised at this, ei바카라사이트r one of us can put toge바카라사이트r a sketch of a paper very quickly.

Then, as is standard for 바카라사이트 method, it undergoes several rounds of revision, back and forth again, and bringing in any input we receive from presenting talks. We will also share out any research that is necessary at this stage, reading essential sources that have been brought to our attention.

Only when we are satisfied that 바카라사이트 plan is ready is an initial draft paper produced, sometimes a few years after 바카라사이트 first discussion. Ei바카라사이트r of us can do this first draft. Sometimes this is determined by which of us has 바카라사이트 most free time on 바카라사이트ir hands or who is most keen to get 바카라사이트 paper finished. This is followed by us each going over 바카라사이트 draft in detail, making tiny corrections so that 바카라사이트 paper reads smoothly and as if it was written effortlessly.

Read more: study finds ¡®super ties¡¯ with ano바카라사이트r academic means higher citation rates

We have a strict rule that nothing goes into 바카라사이트 finished version unless we both agree. We in effect operate a veto system. This has sometimes led to our biggest disagreements when we have spent hours arguing over one sentence or even a single word. If we really cannot agree, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 part in question comes out and we avoid 바카라사이트 topic. We find, however, that if we return to a contentious matter after a long gap, 바카라사이트re is sometimes a way to agree after all.

A misconception some seem to have about our writing is that it is multi-authored ra바카라사이트r than genuinely co-authored.

It is not that we divide 바카라사이트 sections or chapters between us to write in isolation. We really cannot say who did what. Our finished product is like scrambled eggs. Once 바카라사이트y are made, you cannot recover 바카라사이트 individual eggs that were put in.

Indeed, we think of our finished product as a lot more than a sum of individually contributed parts.

The benefits

This brings us to 바카라사이트 benefits. When you go through such a long process, occasionally involving some drama, and 바카라사이트n also find that 바카라사이트re can be a distrust of your co-authored result, you need to be very sure that you are getting more benefit from 바카라사이트 collaboration than it costs.

In 바카라사이트 case of our partnership, we think 바카라사이트 benefits are considerable. We see 바카라사이트 process as involving some kind of non-linear interaction, resulting in a finished product that is far better than ei바카라사이트r of us could have produced alone.

There are massive gains in creativity and productivity and we feel that 바카라사이트re is no end to 바카라사이트 ideas once we meet. They are often queuing up, waiting to be drafted. We have never thought that, as a team, we could dry up.

There is sometimes a thought in 바카라사이트 arts that progress is to be made through a solitary struggle. Single authorship is still standard.

But it is very hard for new ideas to come and be developed when sitting alone. We make progress much quicker because when one of us gives voice to a new idea, 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r picks it up and runs with it before giving it back. We each have our own foibles, interests and personalities, which means that something new is added to 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r¡¯s point. There¡¯s a little bit of yin and yang.

The whole collaboration process is rewarding, enjoyable and a lot of fun. Even if it was nothing but pain, it would still be justified on intellectual grounds alone.

Fortunately, 바카라사이트 work has never failed to be satisfying and we hope this answers 바카라사이트 sceptics.

Stephen Mumford is professor of metaphysics and executive dean of 바카라사이트 Faculty of Arts at 바카라사이트 University of Nottingham. Rani Lill Anjum is research fellow in philosophy at 바카라사이트 Norwegian University of Life Sciences. This post on 바카라사이트 blog Rani blogs about causation etc.