ARC: Teaching: MEQ: Summer 2001: The Co-ordinating Author and the Co-author Contract

Vol. 20 No. 2 -- Summer, 2001

Despite its pervasiveness, value, and current ease, collaborative research may occasionally prove problematic. The potential difficulties are circumscribed by the following three questions:

What happens to a publishable manuscript when the professional relationship between/among its co-authors deteriorates beyond repair?

Given growing concerns about academic error and fraud, who should be accountable for the veracity of a multi-authored publication?

Given the increase in meta-analyses and replication research, who should maintain public access to critical research-related documents and data sets?

After discussing each of these questions in turn, a possible single solution is suggested.

Question #1: At many universities, the policies on multi-authored works do not anticipate a meltdown in the professional relationship between collaborators (Mishkin 1994); thus, a vindictive collaborator could hold a publishable manuscript hostage. For example, suppose Alex and Curt conducted a survey-based study. Alex conceived the study, wrote and submitted a (successful) proposal for funding, wrote the first draft of the questionnaire, analyzed the data, and wrote most of the manuscript intended for journal publication. Curt wrote the literature review and made several key suggestions for revising the questionnaire and manuscript.

After an abstract of their manuscript was published in a conference proceedings, Alex and Curt fought bitterly about the co-author sequence for the journal submission. If Curt is vindictive, and if Alex’s university requires all authors to concur on the submission of multi-authored manuscripts (e.g., University of Houston, New Mexico State University), then Curt can preclude Alex from submitting the manuscript for publication. As Curt has made a substantive contribution, Alex would be unethical to remove him as a co-author without his permission (Borkowski and Welsh 1998, 2000). If Curt refuses to grant that permission and continually rebuffs Alex’s request to submit the manuscript with a vague claim that ‘it still needs work’, then Alex is stymied.

Curt’s obstinacy is unfair to Alex, academia, and possibly practitioners, all who might benefit from the dissemination of this intellectual property. Its consequence is also contrary to the Copyright Act, under which "All of the authors of joint works co-own the copyright in their work, meaning that each has a right to fully exploit it without the permission of other authors" (Dreyfuss 2000, p.1204), and all substantial contributors must be properly acknowledged (Dreyfuss 2000).

Question #2: As empirical research becomes more theoretically complex and reliant on sophisticated methodological tools, co-authors with rare academic specialties are required and recruited. Although including such co-authors should enhance research quality, other co-authors typically lack the technical savvy needed to certify specialists’ contributions. As a result, co-authors may ‘know’ something is true only because it is true for other co-authors (Hardwig 1991). Under this scholarly codependence, no one author is officially accountable for the veracity of an entire work, which encourages both scientific error (i.e., no reliable verification of knowledge claims) and fraud (i.e., blatant misrepresentation of data or plagiarism) (Broad and Wade 1982; LaFollette1992).

Question #3: Although replication studies are not traditional to marketing scholarship (Hubbard and Vetter 1996), the unquestioned value of replication studies to scientific progress in marketing (Easley, Madden, and Dunn 2000; Okleshen and Mittelstaedt 1998) and the emergence of replication-friendly outlets (e.g., Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing Science, April 2000 special issue of Journal of Business Research) suggest that ever more such studies will be conducted and published. Similarly, scholars increasingly rely on meta-analyses to identify empirical generalizations in marketing (Farley, Lehmann, and Mann 1998; Farley, Lehmann, and Sawyer 1995).

The reliability of replication studies and meta-analyses depends on access to the data sets and relevant documents (e.g., questionnaires, data dictionaries) generated by the authors of the original studies. Unfortunately, uncooperative authors often stonewall requests for such information, which is especially vital to successful operational replications (Okleshen and Mittelstaedt 1998). As a result, non-replications of previously reported results are often blamed on nonequivalent manipulations and unique demand artifacts (Easley, Madden, and Dunn 2000), and meta-analyses are overly dependent on guesswork and incomplete data.

Possible Answer

A possible unified answer to these questions: create the role of co-ordinating author and require all co-authors to adapt and then sign a co-author contract modeled after the one below. As defined in that sample contract, the co-ordinating author is responsible for managing the project and subsequent manuscript production and placement. The co-ordinating author may either discharge all the requisite duties of that position (e.g., managing revisions for a manuscript at the ‘revise and resubmit’ stage) or formally shift one or more of those duties to another co-author. The co-ordinating author must make continual but no more than modest progress toward publication of a project-related manuscript (e.g., (re)submission of a project-related manuscript for publication). If no such progress is made during any 12-month period, then any other co-author may assume the role of co-ordinating author.

All co-authors must abide by the co-ordinating author’s decisions and only maintain the right to be expunged as a credited co-author. A mutually acceptable third party will resolve disputes about co-authorship sequence, qualifying for co-authorship status, or derivative efforts by a subset of co-authors (e.g., launching a new research project that extends the current project). No co-author may interfere with the co-ordinating author’s efforts to publish a manuscript (e.g., ask an editor to pull a manuscript from review or publication).

Although many scholars may find co-author contracts as unsavory and ominous as many fiancé(e)s once found prenuptial agreements, couples that draft and sign the latter type of agreement are now thought prudent (e-law.net 2000). In a perpetually harmonious and non-litigious academic world–one, for example, without recurring conflict over co-authorship sequence and credit (Fine and Kurdek 1993; Floyd, Schroeder, and Finn 1994)–co-author agreements would be superfluous. Until scholars can create such a world, co-authors are wise to formalize their duties to each other and to academia in toto. Furthermore, academia gains by co-author agreements under which at least one co-author (1) is officially accountable for the veracity of all claims, (2) will maintain a publically available (and preferably Internet-based) archive of relevant documents and data sets, and (3) will manage all post-publication queries.

Co-author Contract (Sample)

Project Title:

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Previous/Alternative Titles:

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Name of co-ordinating Author: ___________________________________________

Mailing Address: _________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

E-mail Address: _________________________________________________

Phone Number: _________________________________________________

Name of First Co-author: _________________________________________________

Mailing Address: _________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

E-mail Address: _________________________________________________

Phone Number: _________________________________________________

Name of Second Co-author: ______________________________________________

Mailing Address: _________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

E-mail Address: _________________________________________________

Phone Number: _________________________________________________

(Note: Authorship sequence is unrelated to the above author designations.)

Definitions:

A co-author is a person who (1) makes a substantial intellectual contribution and a substantial time commitment to a project that yields one or more publications, and (2) signs this agreement.

A co-ordinating author is the co-author responsible for managing the project and subsequent manuscript production and placement. The co-ordinating author is often, but need not be, the lead author. Specifically, the co-ordinating author:

identifies and adjusts (as needed) the vision for the project;

manages the efforts of all collaborators (i.e., co-authors and other non-authoring assistants) in accord with this vision;

spearheads the search for funding (if necessary);

spearheads the search for relevant literature and other secondary data;

manages the effort to collect and analyze data (if necessary);

produces and posts the project-related manuscript(s) submitted for publication;

produces and posts all project-related correspondence to editors or other relevant parties (e.g., literary agents, funding agencies);

manages the revision process for any manuscript that reaches the ‘revise and resubmit’ stage;

produces the ‘notes to reviewers’ for any manuscript that reaches the ‘revise and resubmit’ stage;

provides copies of the manuscript(s) and all project-related correspondence and documents to all co-authors;

determines who qualifies as a co-author for any project-related manuscript and the relative merits of each co-author’s contribution to that manuscript;

is accountable for the veracity of all claims made in the manuscript(s);

maintains a publically available archive of relevant documents (e.g., questionnaires, data dictionaries) and data sets (if necessary);

handles all post-publication queries (e.g., requests for reprints, questions about methodological details); and

decides if the terms of this agreement should be revised.

Terms of Agreement:

The co-ordinating author may solicit assistance from other co-authors as needed. The co-ordinating author may negotiate with other co-authors to accept one or more of the aforementioned responsibilities. (Such shifts in responsibilities will be noted in the Addendum.)

Other co-authors must abide by all decisions made by the co-ordinating author and only maintain the right to be expunged as a credited co-author. Other co-authors may not interfere with the co-ordinating author’s efforts to publish the manuscript(s).

Co-authors are listed from relatively largest to relatively smallest contribution to the manuscript(s). A mutually acceptable third party will resolve disagreements about co-authorship sequence, qualifying for co-authorship status, or derivative efforts by a subset of co-authors (e.g., launching a new research project that extends the current project).

To remain the co-ordinating author, a co-author must make continual progress toward publication of at least one project-related manuscript. Progress includes any of the following:

new efforts to solicit funding or other support for the project (e.g., research assistants, secondary data);

new or on-going efforts to collect original data;

substantial revision of a project-related manuscript, often in accord with reviewers’ comments; and

(re)submission of a project-related manuscript for publication.

If the co-ordinating author fails to make such progress during any 12-month period, then any other co-author may assume the role of co-ordinating author. (Note: The 12-month period excludes the time a project-related manuscript is under review.) This change of authorship status can occur without the consent of the previous co-ordinating author. The new co-ordinating author must provide written notification of this change to all co-authors.

In accord with the Copyright Act, all co-authors co-own the copyright to any project-related manuscript; thus, each co-author may exploit it without the other co-authors’ permission (e.g., present it in a public forum). Following the submission of any project-related manuscript for publication, a co-author may submit a derivative, non-plagiarized manuscript for publication. However, if the derivative manuscript draws substantially from contributions made by another co-author of a project-related manuscript, then he or she has the right to be listed as a co-author of the derivative manuscript.

Starting date for the project: ___________________________________________

Addendum:

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

We agree to the terms of this agreement.

___________________________________ _____________________

Signature, co-ordinating Author Date

___________________________________ _____________________

Signature, First Co-author Date

___________________________________ _____________________

Signature, Second Co-author Date

Codicil to Initial Agreement:

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

We agree to the terms of this revised agreement.

___________________________________ _____________________

Signature, co-ordinating Author Date

___________________________________ _____________________

Signature, First Co-author Date

___________________________________ _____________________

Signature, Second Co-author Date

References

Borkowski, Susan C. and Mary Jeanne Welch (2000), "Ethical Practice in the Accounting Publishing Process: Contrasting Opinions of Authors and Editors," Journal of Business Ethics, 25 (January), 15-31.

Borkowski,Susan C. and Mary Jeanne Welsh (1998), "Ethics and the Accounting Publishing Process: Author, Reviewer, and Editor Issue," Journal of Business Ethics, 17 (December), 1785-1803.

Broad, William J. and Nicholas Wade (1982), Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Dreyfuss, Rochelle Cooper (2000), "Collaborative Research: Conflicts on Authorship, Ownership, and Accountability," Vanderbilt Law Review, 53, 1161-1232.

Durden, Garey C. and Timothy J. Perri (1995), "Coauthorship and Publication Efficiency," Atlantic Economic Journal, 23 (March), 69-76.

Easterby-Smith, Mark and Danusia Malina (1999), "Cross-cultural Collaborative Research: Toward Reflexivity," Academy of Management Journal, 42 (February), 76-86.

Easley, Richard W., Charles S. Madden, and Mark G. Dunn (2000), "Conducting Marketing Science: The Role of Replication in the Research Process," 48 (April), 83-92.

e-law.net (2000), "Prenuptial Agreements. http://www.e-law.net/Prenuptial.html.

Farley, John U., Donald R. Lehmann, and Lane H. Mann (1998), "Designing the Next Study for Maximum Impact," Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (November), 496-501.

Farley, John U., Donald R. Lehmann, and Alan Sawyer (1995), "Empirical Marketing Generalization Using Meta-Analysis," Marketing Science, 14 (3, Part 2), G36-G46.

Fine, Mark A. and Lawrence A. Kurdek (1993), "Reflections on Determining Authorship Credit and Authorship Order of Faculty-Student Collaborations," American Psychology, 48 (November), 1141-1147.

Floyd, Steven W., Dean M. Schroeder, and Dale M. Finn (1994), "Only If I’m First Author: Conflict Over Credit in Management Scholarship," Academy of Management Journal, 37 (June), 734-747.

Hardwig, John (1991), "The Role of Trust in Knowledge," The Journal of Philosophy, 88 (December), 693-708.

Hubbard, Raymond and Daniel E. Vetter (1996), "An Empirical Comparison of Published Replication Research in Accounting, Economics, Finance, Management, and Marketing," Journal of Business Research, 35 (February), 153-164.

Hyman, Michael R. and Susan D. Steiner (1997), "The Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship: The First Eight Years," Journal of Business & Entrepreneurship, 9 (March), 1-31.

Johnson, Dan (1997), "Getting Noticed in Economics: The Determinants of Academic Citations," American Economist, 41 (Spring), 43-52.

LaFollette, Marcel C. (1992), Stealing Into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

McDowell, John M. and Michael Melvin (1983), "The Determinants of Coauthorship: An Analysis of the Economics Literature," Review of Economics and Statistics, 65 (February), 155-160.

Mishkin, Barbara (1994), "The Needless Agony and Expense of Conflict Among Scientists," The Chronicle of Higher Education, (February 23), B1-B2.

Nathan, Siva, Dana R. Hermanson, and Roger H. Hermanson (1998), "Co-Authoring in Refereed Journals: Views of Accounting Faculty and Department Chairs," Issues in Accounting Education, 13 (February), 79-92.

Okleshen, Cara and Robert Mittelstaedt (1998), "Revisiting the Replicability of Marketing Research: Reported Content and Author Cooperation Eighteen Years Later," in 1998 AMA Winter Educators’ Conference Proceedings, Grewall and Pechmann, eds. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 3-10.

Petry, Glenn H. (1988), "A Statistical Analysis of Worldwide Coauthorship Relationships in Scholarly Journals of Business," Journal of Economics and Business, 40 (May), 169-176.

Qin, Jian, F.W. Lancaster, and Bryce Allen (1997), "Types and Levels of Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research in the Sciences," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48 (October), 893-916.

Sauer, Raymond D. (1988), "Estimates of the Returns to Quality and Coauthorship in Economic Academia," The Journal of Political Economy, 96 (August), 855-866.

Urbancic, Frank R. (1992), "The Extent of Collaboration in the Production of Accounting Research," Accounting Educators’ Journal, 4 (Fall), 47-61.

Return to Publication