Professor Wu’s published papers and books are almost always single-authored; he has never coauthored papers with students. Naturally, I followed suit, and under normal circumstances I also tend toward working independently, while encouraging students to pursue research on their own and not giving much thought to questions of joint authorship.
Still, of course, I am not rigid to the point of stubbornness. For various reasons, I have recently begun trying to coauthor papers with students. But this is not something to be done casually or blindly: why coauthor at all, under what circumstances one may be listed as an author, who should be first author and who second author—these questions cannot be handled in an offhand way.
There are some tacit understandings in academia about authorship, but there are no very clear rules, and the situation varies greatly from one discipline to another. When external rules are not clear, internal rules of self-discipline need to be all the more explicit. Here I will briefly summarize my own basic requirements regarding paper authorship.
1. When is independent writing more appropriate
Most philosophy papers are better written independently, especially in the tradition of what I call “individualistic philosophy.” Philosophical writing is, in essence, an act of self-expression; the saying “the writing reflects the person” obviously presumes a singular “person.” If there are two authors, does it not become “the writing reflects two persons”? Of course, there are exceptions. For example, a certain kind of “individuality” may also belong to a collective—such as a “school” or an “academic lineage”—which in specific circumstances can be regarded as a single unit of expression, something seen as “one body.” In such cases, a jointly written paper does not necessarily impede the expression of “individuality.”
But in general, philosophy or thought-oriented papers that aim to express individuality are less suitable for coauthorship, whereas more “objective” research is better suited to it. Even without considering the issue of individual expression, disciplinary characteristics matter: humanities papers do not require many experiments, so they are not easy to divide up for collaboration; on the other hand, humanities papers place greater emphasis on continuity of thought and consistency of logic, so division of labor among multiple authors may in fact obstruct the article’s ability to make sense as a whole.
2. When coauthored papers are needed
2.1 Publication pressure
Publication pressure is a very real factor, and such external pressure takes many forms. Teachers’ pressure for promotion is actually only one of the less important ones. For example, some grants or projects impose publication requirements on participants, and specific names must be attached for the results to count; there is also students’ own need to publish. At present, many journals in China still discriminate by status: teachers from better universities with higher ranks are more likely to get papers published, while students from lower-ranked institutions with weaker credentials find it much harder.
Of course, we need not overly submit to the realities of the environment, but neither is there any need to reject them too strongly. On the premise of maintaining integrity and sticking to principles, a small degree of compromise is harmless. Moreover, such compromise with worldly rules is not reluctant submission, but a form of respect—just as Socrates respected the secular institutions of Athens with his life. Philosophers ought to transcend society, but they do not necessarily have to make society their enemy.
2.2 Promoting teamwork
Humanities scholarship is often individualistic and solitary, but it cannot be entirely a matter of one person working in isolation behind closed doors. What is meant by willingly sitting on the hard bench is that the bench should at least have a few people beside you. When I was a student in the Wu school, the greatest gain came from discussion seminars. Each time a classmate presented a paper, everyone would weigh in, criticize, and offer suggestions. Not only could a finished paper be polished through such a process; more importantly, one could gain inspiration and open up one’s thinking through mutual exchange. It can be said that many papers, though single-authored, are nevertheless products of collective wisdom.
Mutual criticism and inspiration among teachers and students or among classmates usually do not need, and should not, be reflected in authorship. But if others have indeed provided materials or ideas at key points, and have made an indispensable contribution to the paper’s formation or refinement, then there is no harm in carrying the collaboration through and participating in the writing together.
Coauthoring a paper is the most direct form of collaboration; participants must discuss with one another and spur one another on. In some cases, it can also allow each person to complement the others’ strengths and weaknesses. In addition, in situations where procrastination is rampant, a collaborative task also serves as mutual discipline.
2.3 Research content that is worth dividing up
I emphasize that papers oriented toward self-expression and articulating personal thought are not suitable for coauthorship. But in fact, humanities scholarship is not always of this type. Indeed, for short papers, work in the humanities is often more oriented toward objective examination. For example, surveys or reviews of a certain scholar or a certain line of thought. Many tasks focus more on the collection and organization of materials, which is especially evident in Chinese academia; in philosophy, the “foreign philosophy” model of “modern Western philosophy” is the most typical. The same is true in history: many articles place greater emphasis on collecting and organizing materials, on work that is more objective and based on historical sources, rather than on subjective, thought-oriented work. This tendency to overpursue neutrality while neglecting individualized thought is actually not very good. But that does not mean such more neutral research has nothing worthwhile to offer; on the contrary, it is indeed more fundamental academic work.
And as for this kind of academic work centered on organizing materials, much of it is suitable for division of labor and collaboration. If the original materials are too many and too messy, then several participants can each work on their own, organize the materials separately, and then compile them together. This not only speeds up efficiency, but also allows one another to check for omissions and fill gaps, reducing blind spots. In such circumstances, coauthoring a paper is an appropriate strategy.
3. The prerequisites for being added as an author
1. The status of advisor is not a natural condition for being listed as an author
It is most common for graduate students and their advisors to share authorship, but this certainly does not mean that simply being an advisor automatically qualifies one to be added as an author.
Some advisors do not advise at all and simply grab a byline; such obvious violations of academic ethics are not what I am discussing here. What I want to discuss is this: even if an advisor has deeply “guided” the writing of the paper, that still does not necessarily make the advisor suitable for authorship.
Because “guidance” is part of an advisor’s job. Guiding students in research and writing, criticizing their papers, and helping improve them are all part of what it means to be an “advisor.” Whether an advisor has fulfilled this professional duty has no direct relation to whether they should be listed on a particular paper.
Even if one is advising a student not under one’s own supervision, merely providing “guidance,” “criticism,” and “advice” is not enough to justify authorship. Otherwise, if a journal editor gives you a revise-and-resubmit decision, and under the editor’s guidance you substantially revise the paper, would you then have to list the reviewer as well when it is published?
The condition for authorship is being a “coauthor”; the name being listed is that of a “joint author.” Guidance, criticism, and advice all come from the perspective of a “reader,” and are not necessarily activities belonging to an “author.” The same criticism and discussion can be from the standpoint of a reader, or from the standpoint of an author. Only by joining the exchange from the standpoint of an “author” can one be included in the authorship line.
2. Each author must be responsible for the entire paper
Criticism from the standpoint of a reader and criticism from the standpoint of an author are completely different. As advisors or reviewers, we often bracket some parts and discuss others. For instance, bracketing the viewpoint—I completely disagree with the viewpoint your paper is trying to express, but I set that aside for the moment and only look at your line of argument, whether it can “make sense on its own.” Even if I disagree with your conclusion or your assumptions, I can still guide you to make the argument more rigorous. Or, bracketing the materials—I have not read your core references, but I assume your citations are appropriate, trust that you have not quoted out of context, and then examine whether the inferences your paper draws from those source materials are reasonable.
But an author cannot bracket things in this way. As a coauthor, I cannot keep my distance from the viewpoint the paper is meant to express; the viewpoint the paper is meant to express should be the viewpoint I myself want to express. Nor can I say that I have nothing to do with the key sources cited in the paper. If there are instances of quoting out of context, distorting the meaning, misreading, or even plagiarism, then these are all the shared responsibility of all the authors.
When guiding a paper under normal circumstances, an advisor should respect the student’s independence. Even if the student wants to express a viewpoint the advisor does not agree with, the advisor should still conscientiously guide the writing and help the student reason more effectively. On the other hand, the advisor does not need to check every citation in minute detail; the student can be trusted. But if the advisor is to be added as an author, the above attitude no longer works. As an author, the discussion is no longer about “an article written by someone else,” but about “my article.” No matter whether one is the first author or not, one cannot say, “This is my article, but the viewpoint it expresses is not my own,” or “This is my article, but citation errors have nothing to do with me.”
Unless responsibility has been explicitly divided in a clear way—say, by stating explicitly that Zhang San is only responsible for Chapter 1, Li Si for Chapter 2, and so on—then in general, joint authorship means shared responsibility. Having your name on a paper is first and foremost not a matter of honor, but a matter of responsibility. Therefore authorship must be agreed to; one cannot say, “The teacher guided me so much, and I am grateful, so I’ll just put the teacher’s name on it.”
Once you are listed as an author, you must also carry the blame. The simple standard is that each coauthor should be able to independently defend the entire paper—meaning, one should be able to present the paper using “we” as the subject and respond to all related challenges. There should be no situations like “I’m not really sure why this is written this way; I didn’t write this part.”
3. There must be broad participation
Of course, one cannot require every author to engage with every chapter and every source in exactly the same way, or else the whole point of division of labor and collaboration would be lost. But in order to be responsible for the full text, all coauthors need to have broad participation in every part of the paper—that is, even if one stage is mainly handled by one person, the other authors still need to have at least a minimal level of involvement.
For example, if someone is specifically responsible for organizing a certain text, then that person should have read it thoroughly and understood it deeply. The other authors may not necessarily be able to read all the relevant materials from start to finish. But they cannot fail to read them entirely either. In general, I require each author at least to search for the paragraph containing any sentence quoted in the article, find its context in the source, and read at least the pages surrounding that context through once, to make sure the quotation has not been ripped out of context and that foreign-language material has not been mistranslated.
For example, some sections may be written by a lead author, but everyone else must participate fully in the discussion, clearly point out the sentences that feel awkward or doubtful, revise or compromise, and ultimately make sure that they can personally read through every sentence and know why it has been expressed in that way.
4. There must be a substantive contribution
But broad participation alone is still not enough. Broad participation ensures that you can take responsibility for the paper and defend it, but it does not mean you have the right to be listed as an author. An enthusiastic reader can also defend an article they especially like, perhaps even better than the original author, but however enthusiastic they may be, they are still only a reader.
The author of an article must have made a substantive contribution to the article’s formation, rather than merely discussing it and adding finishing touches after the article had already taken shape.
But what counts as a substantive contribution is rather hard to judge; in broad terms, one can only rely on one’s own conscientious judgment: if he had not participated, this article could not have been written, or else what got written would have been a completely different article.
There are roughly two forms of substantive contribution: one is to the ideas, and the other is to the materials.
On the side of ideas, one must have participated in the paper’s argument or line of thought. Roughly speaking, if one’s contribution can be reflected in the “abstract,” then it is fairly substantive. Because the abstract is a summary of the paper’s basic claims, and every sentence should condense substantive content from the paper. If I took part in the paper and discussed it for ages, but the only improvements were minor details that do not show up in the abstract, then that does not count as a substantive contribution.
On the side of materials, one should have contributed the core sources on which the paper depends, rather than merely finding some supplementary evidence that spruces things up. To put it simply, if the materials I organized were removed and that would certainly damage the paper’s argumentative structure, then my contribution also counts as substantive.
4. The order of authorship
When a paper has multiple substantive contributors, and all of these contributors are willing to take responsibility for the article in the capacity of authors, then joint authorship is possible. Generally speaking, the order of authorship is based on the size of each contribution, with the largest contribution listed first. There is also the title of corresponding author, which may be held concurrently by the first author, or assumed by the advisor or project leader. As for how to measure the size of a contribution, it is rather troublesome for science and engineering papers, but for me it is still fairly simple.
My plan is this: a paper may have only one chief writer, who is responsible for drafting the entire text, while the others are responsible for providing materials, participating in discussion, and making detailed revisions. Then this chief writer is the first author, and the others are tied for second (generally speaking, the so-called “others” means one other person).
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply