What are the minimal communication points with coauthors necessary for peer-review?

I am faced with a slightly hostile and poorly trained group of coauthors (the latter is not their fault: they are MS level engineers from industry). Each communication costs time and misunderstanding. I do have a desire to do things 'correctly', in general, but especially as I suspect that at some point one may write a letter complaining to the editor. I'm hoping to steer this process to happier places, and fewer exchanges seem to be one important component of this.

Upon submission all authors ratified the draft. Now I have a revise and resubmit. My plan is not to send the comments around (they will be taken as 'we failed' by this group, not accustomed to academic comments). Instead, I will address them and send around the revision with reply.

Does this seem acceptable. is there a way to minimize even more?

  • 3
    The hostility might be from your attitude. You come across as if you think your industry coauthors are somewhat below you. Just because you are the "academic" doesn't mean you are any better trained then they are. Why would you jump to conclusions that they shouldn't be involved fully in the revision process? Jul 1, 2019 at 14:45
  • 1
    Are we to assume, from the way you have written this, that you did the lion's share of the work to the paper? Or will that turn out to be someone else?
    – Solar Mike
    Jul 1, 2019 at 14:51
  • 1
    @scrappedcola No chip on my shoulder about being academic vs industry: the hostility comes from these coauthors being assigned by their supervisor to write a paper, which they do not wish to do. They feel that the academic writing process is slow, meaningless, and generally a waste of their time. I am responsible for the individuals assigned being assigned, and they know it. Jul 3, 2019 at 3:22
  • @solar mike I did around 70% of the work. Jul 3, 2019 at 3:22

1 Answer 1


I think that, ethically, you have reached the minimum. If their names are to be attached then they need to sign off on the result as published. But it may not be necessary for them to see how the sausage is made. So, I think you are fine in what you suggest.

However, you should expect questions about why you made certain changes and you might, at that point, need to share something of the comments of reviewers that led you to make those changes.

The endless arguments may still occur, but at least you will have an updated version about which to argue, rather than just a lot of disparate comments.

  • Thank you for that assessment. It's how I'm thinking of it, too. My sincere hope is that they will simply write an email reply like 'Great, glad its done.' and move on to things they value more. Jul 3, 2019 at 3:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .