Abstract
Is there such a thing as too many cooks in the kitchen? Just as too many cooks may create conflicting palates and an unappetizing meal, multiple authors, if not managed well, can result in a confusing and chaotic manuscript.
Creating a multiple-author manuscript often requires planning and effective communication to ensure the final product is well-written. For those embarking on a new journey of a multiple-author work, this editorial serves as a guideline for the process.
Multiple authors can be understood as a multitasking effort to create a valuable manuscript. Authors bring their levels and areas of expertise to the manuscript, often increasing the validity and impact the work may otherwise have if it had a sole author. An outside expert in an area where the primary author lacks knowledge is especially beneficial. Although there is often great value to multiple authors, challenges do occur, and effective planning is needed.
Collaboration and effective communication are key to creating the manuscript. The team should have mutually agreed-upon deadlines and work assignments to complete. The entire writing team should reach a consensus on the journal that is the best fit for the submitted manuscript. Each author’s role, contribution to the article, and the hierarchy of listed authors should also be discussed in the planning process. One of the biggest obstacles often seen in multiauthor work is failing to have set deadlines resulting in the writing process taking longer than anticipated. Having clear communications and expectations will help the article stay on track.
Student authorship benefits from an additional ingredient, namely, an advisor or mentor. The mentor, unlike a co-author, should provide ongoing guidance, clear expectations, and honest feedback that is timely in nature. Novice writers need feedback and direction to develop scholarly writing skills. Student submissions to journals should only be encouraged if the mentor agrees the paper is of publishable quality. The mentor can be listed in the acknowledgments for their oversight of the work, or, in situations in which the mentor takes on a greater role, co-authorship should be discussed, with the student serving as the first author.
The primary or first author of the manuscript takes the role of coordinating and establishing mutually agreed-upon deadlines. This primary author keeps the article on track. The primary author usually also serves as the corresponding author, who is responsible for communicating with the journal during the submission process. The corresponding author will also have their contact information listed on the article.
Once the rough draft of the manuscript has been written, the expectation is that there will be multiple rounds of editing. Peer review should occur within the group, and constructive feedback and suggestions should be given. The first author should ensure that the entire manuscript is written in one voice; however, it is expected that every author approves the final draft that will be submitted.
Part of the submission process will include listing all the authors who contributed to the manuscript in a hierarchy according to the level of work they have contributed. Many journals have policies that dictate who can be listed as an author. Sage Publishing 1 requires that authors meet four requirements:
Made a substantial contribution to the work.
Drafted the article or revised it critically for important intellectual content.
Approved the version to be published.
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Listing honorary authors or ghostwriters, named authors that do not contribute or made insignificant contributions, goes against academic publishing ethics and responsibility. 2 In addition, contributing writers or support persons who provide images, gather data, and so on, should be in the acknowledgment section and not listed as authors.
One last point that deserves attention is the use of large language models and generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT, as part of scholarly writing. A strong recommendation is to use it with caution. Artificial intelligence tools can be helpful in exploring initial ideas and with language polishing, but authors must be aware of the limitations. Artificial intelligence is known to generate false content, have potential biases, and not appropriately cite data. Journals often have guidance for authors on the use of AI. Sage Publishing 3 has published guidelines including not listing AI bots as authors, verifying the data, and clearly acknowledging where language models were used in the manuscript.
As a test, a request was made through a generative AI tool to gauge its guidance on using AI, in multiauthor manuscripts. Not surprisingly, it argued for the use of AI in the writing process to plan, collaborate, and proofread. ChatGPT suggested AI can be used for language editing, literature review assistance, proofreading, data visualization, and plagiarism detection. 4 Artificial intelligence did acknowledge its limitations in scholarly writing including lacking human touch, homogenization of ideas, and limiting diverse perspectives. It is important to emphasize that JDMS does not advocate the use of AI tools for producing manuscripts for publication in our journal.
The benefits of multiauthor manuscripts are clear. Just as a well-written recipe ensures an edible treat, a properly planned multiple-author manuscript can lead to a good article with high impact.