Making interdisciplinary research collaboration work

Many of the most interesting research questions sit between disciplines. How should courts treat evidence produced by algorithms? What drives the spread of antimicrobial resistance in farming communities? How do climate policies affect household budgets? Answering questions like these well usually needs more than one kind of expertise, and that means working with people who were trained to think, write and publish differently from you.

Interdisciplinary collaboration can be very rewarding, but it tends to fail for a small number of predictable reasons. This guide sets out those reasons and the practical habits that help teams avoid them.

Why interdisciplinary projects struggle

• Different vocabularies. The same word can mean different things. “Significance” means one thing to a statistician and another to a historian. “Model” means something different to an economist, a biologist and a lawyer.
• Different standards of evidence. A qualitative researcher may see twenty interviews as rich data; a quantitative colleague may see a tiny sample.
• Different publishing cultures. Some fields value journal articles above all; others value books, conference papers or law review pieces. Author order conventions differ too.
• Different timelines. A lab may produce results in weeks; fieldwork or archival research can take a year.
• Unequal status. One discipline can end up treated as the “main” one and the other as a service provider, which breeds resentment.

None of these is a reason to avoid interdisciplinary work. They are reasons to plan for it.

1. Start with a shared question, not a shared topic

Two people interested in “AI and healthcare” may want quite different things. Spend time framing one research question that both disciplines need to answer it. A useful test: if either partner could answer the question alone, it may not be a true collaboration. Write the question down and agree on it before you design anything.

2. Build a shared vocabulary early

In your first few meetings, explain your methods and key terms to each other as you would to a bright undergraduate. Keep a short glossary in your shared folder of terms that caused confusion, with the meaning you have agreed for this project. It sounds basic, but it saves weeks of talking past each other, and it often improves the final paper because readers from both fields will understand it.

3. Respect each other’s methods

Each partner should be able to explain why their methods are suited to the question, and each should be willing to learn the basics of the other’s. Agree on what counts as adequate evidence for the claims you plan to make. Where standards clash, look for designs that satisfy both, such as combining a survey with in-depth interviews, rather than letting one side override the other.

4. Agree on outputs and credit at the start

Because publishing cultures differ, discuss early:

• How many outputs you expect, and in which fields. One paper in each discipline’s journals, plus a joint paper, is a common pattern.
• Who leads each output. The lead on a law journal article and the lead on a public health article may be different people.
• How author order will work for each output, given each field’s norms.
• How contributions will be described. The CRediT taxonomy gives a shared, discipline-neutral vocabulary for roles.

Write these points down. See our article on agreeing a co-authorship plan in the guides section for a template.

5. Choose journals carefully

Finding a journal that welcomes interdisciplinary work can be hard. Specialist journals may see the paper as outside their scope, while broad journals may lack reviewers who understand both sides. Some tips:

• Look at where similar interdisciplinary papers have been published, by checking the reference lists of your key sources.
• Read the aims and scope carefully and look at recent issues.
• Consider a short presubmission enquiry to the editor if the journal allows it.
• Be extra careful about outlets that call themselves “multidisciplinary” and accept anything quickly for a fee. Many predatory journals use broad titles. Our guides on spotting predatory journals and finding a good indexed journal can help.

6. Plan for different timelines

Map out each partner’s work on a single timeline and identify dependencies. If the analysis cannot start until fieldwork finishes, the analyst should know that from the start and may be able to prepare methods or write the literature review in the meantime. Regular, short check-ins, monthly for example, help keep both sides moving.

7. Write together, not in separate pieces

A common mistake is for each partner to write “their” sections and stitch them together. The result reads like two papers. Instead:

• Agree on a detailed outline together.
• Have one person draft the full text for voice and flow, with others contributing material.
• Ask each partner to read the whole paper as an outsider would, flagging jargon from the other field.
• Write the introduction and discussion jointly, since that is where the interdisciplinary contribution is made.

8. Prepare for reviewers from different fields

Reviewers may come from either discipline, or both. Anticipate their questions: explain methods that are routine in one field but unfamiliar in the other, and make the contribution to each field clear. When reviews arrive, decide together who answers which comments.

A quick checklist for interdisciplinary teams

1. We have one shared research question that needs both disciplines.
2. We keep a glossary of terms with agreed meanings.
3. We agree on standards of evidence for our main claims.
4. We have planned outputs, leads and author order for each.
5. We have a joint timeline showing dependencies.
6. We have checked target journals for scope and legitimacy.
7. We write and revise the whole paper together.

How CollabCite fits in

One of the hardest parts of interdisciplinary work is finding someone in another field who shares your interest. CollabCite lets verified researchers and students search for collaborators by field and research interest, across disciplines. You can see how it works or join as a founding member.