This document outlines a seven step plan for co-authoring academic papers with colleagues. It discusses identifying co-authors, discussing the project scope and authorship, targeting journals, writing and revising drafts, and continuing to collaborate throughout the writing process. Challenges like author commitment issues and manuscript rejections are also addressed. The goal is to provide guidance for effective collaboration that results in a successfully published academic paper.

1. Co-authoring with academic colleagues:
An insider’s view
Professor Ruth Rentschler
Deakin University
Wednesday 8 June 2011

2. A seven step plan
• Step 1: Identify the academic colleagues with
whom you want to share ideas
• Step 2: Discuss face to face what you wish to do
together
• Step 3: Discuss & determine authorship
• Step 4: Define the scope of the paper
• Step 5: Target the journal
• Step 6: Target the article
• Step 3: Discuss & determine authorship
• Step 7: Continue to write

3. Step 1: Identify the academic colleagues
with whom you want to share ideas
• Writing is a creative craft of collaboration through
conversations, so …
• Choose colleagues with whom you can work
• Choose colleagues who know the research domain
• Choose colleagues whose skill sets compliment
yours
• Consider a mentor or your supervisor

4. Step 2: Discuss face to face what you
bring to the table
• What are our shared interests?
• When are my co-authors available?
• How do our skills compliment one another?
• What pressures are we under?
• How can we negotiate who does what?
• How can we identify individual and team
strengths?
• Am I reliable, thorough and critical?

5. Step 3: Discuss & determine authorship
• Who creates the first draft of the paper?
• How important is the paper to you and others?
• Share first authorship in different iterations of
the paper

6. Step 4: Define the scope of the paper
• Are we starting to write from scratch?
• Are we seeking to expand an existing paper?
• Do we need to collect more data?
• What is our contribution to theory?
• What is our contribution to practice?

7. Step 4: Target the journal
• What type of journal are we targeting?
• Have you read the journal?
• What is the “right” balance of contribution to
theory and contribution to practice, given the
journal we are targeting?

8. An example of rejection …
• I have now received three reviews of your paper,
which you will find below. As you will see,
unfortunately it has not met their rigorous standards
in terms of theorisation or contribution. The
reviewers have provided some useful comments
which I believe should be helpful in moving forward
with this paper and we hope that you will find them
helpful. I am sorry to say, however, that we are
unable to accept your article for publication in the
journal.

9. Step 6: Target the article
• Have you read the journal?
• Have you referred to its articles in your paper?
• Are you extending theory, as developed in that
journal?
• Is your method appropriate for the journal?
• Is that journal interested in Australian data?

10. An example of revise and resubmit
• I have now received three reviews of your paper. One review
is negative and recommends reject, one is more positive
suggesting revision and the final review recommends major
revisions.
• Specifically, it is an interesting contribution but the originality
and value of the contribution is not clearly articulated. This
requires serious thought. To help with this aspect, I would
suggest you revise this paper throughout checking for sense,
sentence-structure and logic and make sure that your
arguments are absolutely clear. Embedding your scholarship
in the appropriate literatures in a logical fashion (discussed
below) would also help orient the reader.

11. What to do when your co-authors are
not committed?
1. Drop the project
2. Drop the author (beware of taking this step
without explicit co-author approval)
3. Take the lead in advancing the paper (“carrying”
an author)
4. Extend the time frame for submission
5. Lower your sights in terms of target journals
6. Incorporate new people to add value

12. Two examples …
Example 1
• I am afraid I have had a terrible shock. A family
member died unexpectedly. I think it best if I bow
out of this paper.
Example 2
• I am working on it and will send it to you before
the end of June. Sorry for the delay, I am
conducting several research projects at the same
time and was forced to reorganise priorities.

13. Step 3: Discuss & determine authorship
• Think about when you need to bring a new
author into the project
• Share revision following reviewer comments

14. Step 7: Continue to write
• Make a plan for each team member and the
project as a whole
• Set dates for completion of stages
• Meet at the conclusion of each stage
• Remember: Murphy’s Law applies!

15. Sources
• Babin, B.J. 2008 Scholarly Marketing Publication: The American
Advantage, European Business Review 20(5): 370-383.
• Perry, C., Carson, D. & Gilmore, A. 2003 Joining a conversation:
Writing for EJM’s editors, reviewers and readers requires planning
care and persistence, European Journal of Marketing 37(5/6): 652-
667.
• Polonsky, M. et al 1998 Perspectives on publishing: Advice for
those just getting started Australasian Marketing Journal 6(2): 63-
80.
• Stewart, D. 2003 Academic Publishing in Marketing: Best and
Worst Practices, European Business Review 20(5): 421-433.