成功合作的10个规则
Ten Simple Rules for a Successful CollaborationTen Simple Rules for a Successful Collaboration
Quentin Vicens, Philip E. Bourne*
Rule 1: Do Not Be Lured into Just Any Collaboration
Learn to say no, even if it is to an attractive grant that would involve significant amounts of money and/or if it is a collaboration with someone more established and well-known. It is easier to say no at the beginning—the longer an ill-fated collaboration drags on, the harder it is to sever, and the worse it will be in the end. Enter a collaboration because of a shared passion for the science, not just because you think getting that grant or working with this person would look good on your curriculum vitae. Attending meetings is a perfect opportunity to interact with people who have shared interests . Take time to consider all aspects of the potential collaboration. Ask yourself, will this collaboration really make a difference in my research? Does this grant constitute a valid motivation to seek out that collaboration? Do I have the expertise required to tackle the proposed tasks? What priority will this teamwork have for me? Will I be able to deliver on time? If the answer is no for even one of these questions, the collaboration could be ill-fated.
Enter a collaboration because of a shared passion for the science . . .
Rule 2: Decide at the Beginning Who Will Work on What Tasks
Carefully establishing the purpose of the collaboration and delegating responsibilities is priceless. Often the collaboration will be defined by a grant. In that case, revisit the specific aims regularly and be sure the respective responsibilities are being met. Otherwise, consider writing a memo of understanding, or, if that is too formal, at least an e-mail about who is responsible for what. Given the delegation of tasks, discuss expectations for authorship early in the work. Having said that, leave room for evolution over the course of the collaboration. New ideas will arise. Have a mutual understanding up-front such that these ideas can be embraced as an extension of the original collaboration. Discuss adjustments to the timelines and the order of authors on the final published paper, accordingly. In any case, be comfortable with the anticipated credit you will get from the work. The history of science is littered with stories of unacknowledged contributions.
Rule 3: Stick to Your Tasks
Scientific research is such that every answered question begs a number of new questions to be answered. Do not digress into these new questions without first discussing them with your collaborators. Do not change your initial plans without discussing the change with your collaborators. Thinking they will be pleased with your new approach or innovation is often misplaced and can lead to conflict.
Rule 4: Be Open and Honest
Share data, protocols, materials, etc., and make papers accessible prior to publication. Remain available. A trusting relationship is important for the collaborative understanding of the problem being tackled and for the subsequent joint thinking throughout the evolution of the collaboration.
Rule 5: Feel Respect, Get Respect
If you do not have respect for the scientific work of your collaborators, you should definitely not be collaborating. Respect here especially means playing by Rules 2–4. If you do not respect your collaborators, it will show. Likewise, if they don't respect you. Look for the signs. The signs will depend on the personality of your collaborators and range from being aggressive to being passive–aggressive. For example, getting your tasks done in a timely manner should be your priority. There is nothing more frustrating for your collaborators than to have to throttle their progress while they are waiting for you to send them your data. Showing respect would be to inform your collaborator when you cannot make a previously agreed-upon deadline, so that other arrangements can be made.
Rule 6: Communicate, Communicate, and Communicate
Consistent communication with your collaborators is the best way to make sure the partnership is going in the planned direction. Nothing new here, it is the same as for friendship and marriage. Communication is always better face-to-face if possible, for example by traveling to meet your collaborators, or by scheduling discussion related to your collaborations during conferences that the people involved will attend. Synchronous communication by telephone or video teleconferencing is preferred over asynchronous collaboration by e-mail (data could be exchanged by e-mail prior to a call so that everyone can refer to the data while talking).
Rule 7: Protect Yourself from a Collaboration That Turns Sour
The excitement of a new collaboration can often quickly dissipate as the first hurdles to any new project appear. The direct consequence can be a progressive lack of interest and focus to get the job done. To avoid the subsequent frustrations and resentment that could even impact your work in general, give three chances to your collaborators to get back on track. After all, your collaborators could just be having a difficult time for reasons outside of their control and unanticipated at the time the collaboration started. After three chances, if it feels like the collaboration cannot be saved, move on. At that point try to minimize the role of your collaborators in your work: think carefully about the most basic help you need from them and get it while you can (e.g., when having a phone call or a meeting in person). You may still need to deal with the co-authorship, but hopefully for one paper only!
Rule 8: Always Acknowledge and Cite Your Collaborators
This applies as soon as you mention preliminary results. Be clear on who undertook what aspect of the work being reported. Additionally, citing your collaborators can reveal your dynamism and your skills at developing prosperous professional relationships. This skill will be valued by your peers throughout your career.
Rule 9: Seek Advice from Experienced Scientists
Even though you may not encounter severe difficulties that would result in the failure of the partnership, each collaboration will come with a particular set of challenges. To overcome these obstacles, interact with colleagues not involved in the work, such as your former advisors or professors in your department who have probably been through all kinds of collaborations. They will offer insightful advice that will help you move beyond the current crisis. Remember, however, that a crisis can occasionally lead to a breakthrough. Do not, therefore, give up on the collaboration too easily.
Rule 10: If Your Collaboration Satisfies You, Keep It Going
Ever wondered why a pair of authors has published so many papers together? Well, it is like any good recipe: when you find one that works, you cook it again and again. Successful teamwork will tend to keep flourishing—the first paper will stimulate deeper and/or broader studies that will in turn lead to more papers. As you get to know your collaborators, you begin to understand work habits, strengths but also weaknesses, as well as respective areas of knowledge. Accepting these things and working together can make the work advance rapidly, but do not hurry: it takes time and effort from both sides to get to this point.
Collaborations often come unexpectedly, just like this one. One of us (PEB) as Editor-in-Chief was approached not just with the idea for these Ten Rules, but with a draft set of rules that needed only minor reworking. As you can see, we have obeyed Rule 8.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Tom Cech for insightful discussions, and Chrysa Latrick, David Zappulla, Barbara Cohen, Emma Veitch, Catherine Nancarrow, and Hemai Parthasarathy for helpful suggestions on the manuscript.
Author contributions. QV and PEB wrote the paper.
References
Borner K, Maru JT, Goldstone RL (2004) The simultaneous evolution of author and paper networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101: 5266–5273. Find this article onlineRubin GM (2006) Janelia Farm: An experiment in scientific culture. Cell 125: 209–212. Find this article onlineSmalheiser NR, Perkins GA, Jones S (2005) Guidelines for negotiating scientific collaboration. PLoS Biol 3: e217.
Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Howard Hughes Medical Institute (2006) Making the right move. A practical guide to scientific management for postdocs and new faculty Chevy Chase: Available: http://www.hhmi.org/labmanagement. Accessed 21 February 2007.
Aiken JW (2006) What's the value of conferences? Scientist 20: 54–56. Find this article online
Scientific research has always been a collaborative undertaking, and this is particularly true today. For example, between 1981 and 2001, the average number of coauthors on a paper for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U S A rose from 3.9 to 8.4 . Why the increase? Biology has always been considered the study of living systems; many of us now think of it as the study of complex systems. Understanding this complexity requires experts in many different domains. In short, these days success in being a biologist depends more on one's ability to collaborate than ever before. The Medical Research Centers in the United Kingdom figured this out long ago, and the new Janelia Farm research campus of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in the United States has got the idea, as it strongly promotes intra- and inter-institutional collaborations .
Given that collaboration is crucial, how do you go about picking the right collaborators, and how can you best make the collaboration work? Here are ten simple rules based on our experience that we hope will help. Additional suggestions can be found in the references . Above all, keep in mind that these rules are for both you and your collaborators. Always remember to treat your collaborators as you would want to be treated yourself—empathy is key. 合作成功的10条简单法则
规则1：不要受诱惑参加所有的合作
即使诱惑你的是一个投入了大量基金的项目，或者你面临的的合作者相当的有名，你也要学会说“不”。早一点说不总是比较容易的。一段注定失败的合作关系维持得越久，你就越难割断，到最后结果会变得更加糟糕。不要仅仅因为觉得得到这个项目基金或者和这个人合作能让自己的简历看起来更加漂亮而加入，一段好的合作关系应该是建立在对科学共同的热情上。 参加会议能让你有更好的机会和有共同研究兴趣的人交流。花时间对可能的合作做个方面的详细考量。问清楚自己，这个合作真的能对我的研究产生好的影响么？这个项目真的能激发一个有效的合作么？我有解决提案中问题的能力么？在团体合作中我需要优先完成的任务是什么？我是否能按时完成他们？如果这其中任何一个问题的答案是否定的，那么这个合作将注定失败。
要因为对科学共有的激情而合作。。。
规则2：一开始就分配好个人任务
认真地建立合作目标并把任务合理的分配给个人是非常关键的。一般来说合作是由申请到的基金项目决定的。这种情况下，需要定期修改具体目标并保证每个人都能完成各自的任务。为此可以考虑制订理解备忘录，如果觉得这个过于正式，至少可以发一封电子邮件告诉大家各自的任务。一旦任务分发下去之后，大家需要在工作的早期就明确讨论对此项目完成的预期。当然我们也需要留一些发展空间给后面的合作。新的想法出现时，加入这些想法作为原有合作的拓展应是大家首先也是最重要的共识， 然后相应的讨论调整原来的进程表以及最后发表论文的作者顺序。任何时候，以健康心态面对由于自己在工作中所作贡献而得到的回报。科学的发展历史中充满了做出贡献却没有得到承认的例子。
规则3：不偏离自己的任务
在科学研究中，一个回答了的问题往往引发出更多新的需要回答的问题。在和合作者讨论之前，不要被这些新的问题牵走了注意力。除非同合作者取得作出修改计划的共识，不然还是应该坚持原有的计划。你认为新的方法或创新会得到大家的欣赏赞同，结果往往相反并且导致矛盾。
规则4：开放且诚实的态度
分享数据，草案以及其他材料。在文章发表前确保大家都能得到论文并随时准备好和大家交流分享。相互信任对于合作思考解决问题以及以后的合作发展都是非常重要的。
规则5：互相尊重
在科研中，如果你不能尊重你的合作者，那么你觉得不应该参与到任何合作性的项目中。在这儿尊重尤其指遵守规则2到4。如果你不尊重你的同事，他们会察觉出来。同样的，如果他们不尊重你，你也可以发现信号。根据你同事的性格，这些信号可以是直接冒犯人的，亦可能是比较消极的。譬如说，按时完成你的工作应是你的首要任务，对你的合作者来说，没有什么比停下自己的进度等待你给他们传输数据更让人沮丧的了。如果你尊重你的同事，你应该明确告诉他们你不能在原先设定的截止日期前完成任务以便他们做其他的安排。
规则6：沟通，沟通，再沟通
为了使合作向着计划好的方向行进，最好的办法莫过于和你的合作者们持之以恒的沟通，就像我们维系一段友情或婚姻一样。如果可能的话，面对面的交流总是比较好的。譬如出差和他们会面或者在共同参加的学术会议上讨论。同步的沟通方式譬如电话或这视屏会议总是比电子邮件这种非同步的交流要好（你可以在事先用电子邮件传输数据这样每个人在会谈时都有能参考的数据）。
规则7：当合作变质时保护自己
对任何一个新项目来说，合作的兴奋感总是在碰到第一个障碍时就轻易的消失了。这样的直接后果就是逐步失去兴趣和注意力，从而不能圆满完成任务。由此产生的挫折感和怨恨甚至会影响你的日常工作。为了避免这样的情况产生，给你的同事3次机会是你们能够回到原先的工作轨道上。有时候，你的同事可能只是遭遇到了他们之前预想不到的困难而陷入了短暂的困境。三次机会后，如果你仍然感到合作没有办法进行下去，你可以选择放弃。这时你应该尽量减少你同事对你工作的影响，仔细思考你能从他们那儿得到的最基本的帮助并在需要的时候同他们合作（譬如通过电话或者面对面的会谈）。你可能仍需要在论文上写明合著，但最好这是你们最后一次的合作。
规则8：总是应用并感谢你合作者的工作
这条原则从你开始报告初始结果时就开始应用了。在报告中明确指出各人的工作和贡献。另外，引证合作者的工作也能显示你的推动力以及你成功发展专业合作关系的的技巧和能力。这种能力是为你职业生涯中同行们所看重的。
规则9：从有经验的科学家们寻求建议
即使到目前为止你还没有在合作中遇到什么严重的问题，任何一个合作都面临着一系列的挑战。为了克服这些困难，你应该此向其他没有参与到合作中的有经验的同事请教，譬如说你的前任导师或系里的教授。他们会给你提供有用的建议帮助你处理危机。记住，这些危机往往带来新的突破，所以千万不要轻易放弃你们的合作。
规则10：如果你们的合作取得成功，保持住
你曾经奇怪过为什么两个作者可以合作发表这么多论文吗？像任何一个好的菜谱一样，一旦你发现它成功了，你就会按照这个菜谱实施一次又一次。一次成功的合作是一个良性循环的开始, 这次的成功激发了更深更广的研究，从而带来更多的论文。一旦你了解了你的合作者，你也清楚了他的工作习惯，长处短处，以及他擅长的知识面。接受这些一起工作将能加快你们的工作节奏。当然不要着急，这需要双方都花上一定的时间以达到上述境界。
合作往往是不期而至的，就像这次，我们的一个主编得到了这个“10个规则”想法， 并且对一些需要简单修改的规则，列出了一些草稿。看，我们正是遵守了规则8呢。
回复 #2 David 的帖子
院感是一门交叉学科，以后会有很多的合作，说在前面总比事后翻脸的好！ 合作问题是个大学问！谢谢！:loveliness: 希望和同事们都可以合作愉快！
页:
[1]