1

I am part of a collaboration (i.e., researchers from different universities, not formally tied to a grant or deadline). We all met for a few days to develop an idea, and it seems quite promising. However, I did not feel like I contributed much, and since the project is a bit outside my expertise, I am not sure how much more I can even contribute. (Of course, I can learn from them, but I am not convinced that that is a good enough reason to be apart of the project.)

Should I quit the collaboration, so as not to "get in the way" of the others? Or is it worth staying on, even if my main contributions are high-level (e.g., organizing shared files, adding code descriptions, sending "check-in" e-mails, etc.)?

EDIT: Some people have linked me to my own question, which I think is different in nature; here I am asking about how to handle the dynamics within a particular collaboration. Perhaps the underlying question is really, are high-level contributions worthwhile? Also, I have spoken with the collaborators, and they are fine with me on the project, but I wonder if they are just being nice or political. So maybe there's imposter syndrome involved as well.

4

I am part of a collaboration [that] met for a few days to develop an idea, and it seems quite promising. However, I did not feel like I contributed much, and since the project is a bit outside my expertise, I am not sure how much more I can even contribute...Should I quit the collaboration, so as not to "get in the way" of the others? Or is it worth staying on, even if my main contributions are high-level (e.g., organizing shared files, adding code descriptions, sending "check-in" e-mails, etc.)?

You could share your concerns with your collaborators and ask them whether they want you to continue collaborating. You might discover you've already contributed more than you've realised. Regardless, you'll be making it clear what you can offer moving forwards.

2

Almost all academic journals explicitly demand in their submission guidelines that all listed authors should have made a substantial intellectual contribution to the work. Organising shared files, commenting code, and sending check-in emails cannot qualify as a substantial intellectual contribution, in my opinion, and does not warrant co-authorship by most academic standards. Actual ideas to solve the problems at hand, or elaborations on your collaborators' ideas would.

Whether or not you are likely to contribute such ideas in the future, and therefore if you should stay in the project, is for you to decide.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.