| Collaborative Authorship |
Article Index for Collaborative |
Website Links For Collaborative |
Information AboutCollaborative Authorship |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT COLLABORATIVE AUTHORSHIP | |
| collaboration | |
|
From an academic perspective, there is anxiety about collaborative authorial endeavours. Academics are concerned with being able to discover who wrote what, and which ideas belong to whom (York 76). In other disciplines, such as the sciences, collaborative writing is the norm. In social sciences, such as library science, collaboration has increased dramatically over the past 25 years (Bahr & Zemon 410, 412). Alice Harrison Bahr and Mickey Zemon’s study of academic journals came to the conclusion that “as evidenced in the sciences and social sciences, collaboration encourages author productivity and enhances article quality. As research becomes more quantitative, collaboration increases” (417). In an artistic sense, as Lorraine York notes, “Critics and readers feel a persistent need to ‘de-collaborate’ these works, to parse the collective text into the separate contributions of two or more authors” (7). Wikipedia (and, indeed, all Wikis ) is an example of collaborative writing. This collaborative effort is both the strength and the weakness of Wikipedia, because it enhances article quality, but at the same time it occasionally creates skepticism about the authority of the information. REFERENCES Bahr, Alice Harrison and Mickey Zemon. “Collaborative Authorship in the Journal Literature: Perspectives for Academic Librarians Who Wish to Publish.” ''College & Research Libraries'' (2000) 410-419. York, Lorraine. ''Rethinking Collaborative Women’s Writing''. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2002. EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|