AO: The authors are thinking about transnational institutional co-authorship as “collaboration” (not individual co-authorship). “we assume that in most cases coauthorship indicates a fairly active cooperation between the partners, closer and more active than the exchange of material, information, and comments, which shows up, for example, in acknowledgements.” They are interested in understanding country-to-country differences in rates of international co-authorship.
AO: Cerwonka writes: “one of my motivations for collaborating with Liisa on this book was my sense that as more and more scholars undertake interdisciplinary work, they face epistemological and methodological roadblocks like the ones I confronted in my field research.” She writes about not having a proper home between political scientists (too empirically oriented) and political philosophers (too philosophic).
AO: Kenner is thinking about how digital infrastructures (the “layers of electronics, institutions, code, paradigms, experts, networks, service providers, information systems, standards, and texts assembled to bring scholarship online”) and how they open and close possibilities for scholarly production and engagement. She is especially focused on publishing infrastructure and changes to the digital realm.
AO: The authors are focused on collaboration as not equal between global North and global South partners and despite a desire to be more equal, structural inequalities continue to lend the global North partner with greater privilege.
AO: This article's author worries about the correlation between collaboration and research productivity, and between collaboration and financial support for research. The author puts forth bibliometric methods as a convenient and non-reactive tool for studying collaboration in research. This method becomes a very popular way to quantify scientific collaboration.