[birdky] post-thanksgiving thanks on publishing ky natural history information
- From: "Stephen Stedman" <SStedman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <birdky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:04:39 -0600
Being prone to try to publish the results of my natural history-related
efforts and sometimes accomplishing these efforts with a co-author, I
thought it might be worthwhile to share some of my experiences in this
regard, perhaps for the benefit of anyone who may wish to publish stuff
in tandem with other folks.
Getting everyone on the same page about what will be in a manuscript
submitted for publication is an absolutely necessary but often a
difficult task. Usually this involves sending material back and forth a
few times to iron out any kinks in the content or wording of the ms. I
have found that the most helpful co-authors in this regard are those who
totally ignore a request for comments on ms. material for months after
the ms. material has been sent to them. When you find yourself working
with someone who ignores your requests for comments completely, be sure
to cleave to them with unremitting fidelity, because you are not likely
to find many co-authors who demonstrate this behavior pattern.
Another behavior pattern of great value in co-authors involves how they
deal with reminders about commenting on draft material that they have
delayed dealing with for months. The most helpful co-authors are those
who find a myriad of excuses for not commenting on draft material,
especially if the draft material involves just a few paragraphs. These
most helpful of all co-authors have a veritable litany of excuses for
not replying, but usually they proclaim that they are just really busy
and cannot find even five minutes to read 200 words and offer back
useful comments on them. When you find yourself working with such
co-authors, be really, really glad that it has been your lot in life to
associate with them and do all you can to promote a continuation of this
kind of relationship.
Still another behavior pattern of the best co-authors is their tendency
to reject outright material that you have sent to them for inclusion in
a ms. without providing the least vestige of a rationale for the
rejection. Complete, utter rejection without providing a shred of a
reason is the way that the superlative co-author will most helpfully
work with you in getting a ms. ready for submission. Again, cleave to
co-authors of this ilk because they are really rare and hard to find.
Well, more thoughts on publishing natural history data will follow, so
stay tuned.
Steve Stedman
Cookeville, TN
Other related posts:
- » [birdky] post-thanksgiving thanks on publishing ky natural history information - Stephen Stedman
