Negotiating Roles and Relationships: Stepping Through the Minefield of Co-Authors and Textbook Publishers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When producing a single-author scholarly monograph that will be self-published, either in print format or digitally online, an author has complete control of the writing process, deadlines, and production of the product. On the other hand, publishing textbooks typically involves a number of interdependent participants, including co-authors and an assortment of publishing-company people (acquisition editors, developmental editors, copy editors, photo editors, marketing specialists, and sometimes more senior managing editors). Co-authors and editors bring unique personalities and egos to the writing project. Sometimes these personalities and egos work like a well-oiled machine; at other times they are significantly uncoordinated. This article examines the array of potentially problematic roles and relationships encountered when pursuing the publication of a co-authored textbook.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.088 | 0.166 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.057 | 0.065 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".