How to pick a great scientific collaborator

My summary and notes from a column in Nature written by Danish Professor Carsten Lund Pedersen.

> Finding great collaborators and being able to work with them productively is one of the most important predictors of success.

> There are three main traits of a great partner: (i) they are «someone who is fun to work with«, (ii) they are «someone who contributes to the work«, and (iii) they are «someone who has the same ambition«

> From these three traits, Prof Pedersen proposes a tool or analysis framework that classifies collaborators and ourselves into:

• «Most valuable collaborators», those who meet all three traits.
• «Likeable freeloaders», those who are fun to work with and have the same level of ambition, but do not contribute significantly to the work. The author proposes that sometimes it is possible to redirect collaboration with a serious conversation.
• «Annoying productives» are people who contribute to a project and share ambition, but are not fun to work with. They can help you progress, but they can also make you miserable in the process. The author proposes two options: avoid these individuals altogether, or «protect» yourself from them by having other, more fun collaborators on the same project.
• «Misaligned partners» are fun to work with and contribute to the study, but do not have the same ambition. They do not work on the same topic or do not have similar career goals. The author proposes whether it is possible to find common projects in which the same level of ambition is shared.

The final and important proposal is to use the tool on ourselfs, as a self-assessment to understand how your collaborators see you, and to improve your interaction with them. The author uses the tool to describe that in the past his traits have sometimes been those of a «annoying productive» type partner, and being aware of this has made him change to a better collaborator profile.

Prof Pedersen conclusion about «how closely related is doing rigorous research with having fun in the process. So I try to make fun a priority in my projects» is very interesting. I think this can be a useful guidance for researchers for whom it is not easy to find long-lasting collaborations. A feature of many collaborative projects and interactions that could be improved is how enjoyable and fun they are for the participants. This makes us to put more or less energy into the collaboration, and ultimately to continue or not with it. Doing a critical self-analysis, recognising our defects, and setting out to improve, is a very brave and correct attitude.