A collaborative paper comes back with reviews, everyone agrees the comments are reasonable, and then nothing happens for four months. The resubmission window closes and the work goes stale.
This is the most common way partnered papers fail, and it is a project-management problem rather than a scientific one.
Name the person who drives it
Usually the corresponding author, but what matters is that it is explicit. Their job: split the comments, set internal deadlines, assemble the response letter, and decide when a disagreement cannot be resolved.
If nobody is named, the work defaults to whoever is most anxious about the paper — which is often the most junior person, and it is not a durable arrangement.
Split the comments in a table, within two days
One row per comment, numbered as the reviewer numbered them; columns for owner, internal deadline, status. Send it with the reviews.
Do not forward the reviews with "please have a look" — that reliably produces nothing. The table is also what tells you where the paper is stuck when it stalls.
Internal deadlines at half the journal's window
Give co-authors roughly half the time the journal allows. The second half is for assembly, a full read-through, and the problems that always surface.
If the journal's window is too short for a multi-author, multi-timezone group, request an extension when the reviews arrive — not on the final day. Most journals grant it if asked early.
One thing to build in: if your partner carries a heavy teaching load, their available hours are not evenly spread. Ask when their examination and admission periods fall, and set their deadline around them rather than assuming a uniform pace.
When a co-author goes silent
Remind privately with a specific date. Then remind again, stating that you will handle their section if nothing arrives by a named day. Then do it — and still send them the final version before submission.
Every co-author retains the right to approve the final manuscript. Submitting without giving them that opportunity creates a larger problem than a missed deadline, and it is the kind of thing that ends a collaboration.
If someone is genuinely uncontactable, raise it with the editor; journals have a process.
When two co-authors disagree
Separate the type of disagreement.
Presentation. The lead decides and the paper moves. Not worth stalling over.
Scientific substance. If a co-author believes a conclusion overreaches the data, that is an objection to resolve rather than outvote. The usual resolution is to state the conclusion at the level everyone accepts and put the uncertainty in the limitations.
Watch for a specific failure here: if you hold the funding and the senior position, a partner's objection may be withdrawn rather than resolved. If someone raises a concern once and then goes quiet about it, check privately whether it was actually addressed.
Reviewer objections about the local context
Reviewers unfamiliar with Vietnam will sometimes object based on assumptions from elsewhere — about the health system, the school system, sampling, or what a given figure means locally.
Your partner should write these responses. You cannot verify the facts, and a response written from outside will be thin in a way reviewers notice.
Two practices that help: ask them for the response with sources rather than drafting it yourself for their approval; and add a sentence or two to the paper, not only to the letter, since a reviewer's confusion predicts readers' confusion.
Response letter conventions
Ask everyone to use the same format: quote the comment, state what was done, point to where in the revised manuscript.
And keep the tone uniform. A letter that is gracious in most places and sharp in two will be read by the editor through the sharp parts.
If English editing is needed on your partner's sections, do it at the end as a separate pass — and send the edited version back rather than silently rewriting, so they can check that meaning survived.
After acceptance
Check the proofs carefully: author names and diacritics, affiliations, and the funding acknowledgement. Vietnamese names are frequently mangled at this stage, and fixing it afterwards is difficult.
Send the final version to every co-author.
And if you committed to sharing results with participants or the host community, do it now — not after the grant closes and everyone has moved on. That commitment was made to people who cannot chase you for it.
Why do collaborative papers stall at revision?
Because nobody owns the revision. The comments are usually reasonable; what is missing is a named person with internal deadlines.
How should internal deadlines be set?
At roughly half the journal's window, and set around the partner's teaching, examination and admission periods rather than assuming a uniform pace.
What if a co-author does not respond?
Remind with a specific date, then state you will handle the section, then do so — but still send them the final version, since every co-author must approve it.
Who should answer reviewer objections about the local context?
Your partner, with sources. A response written from outside is thin in a way reviewers notice, and the point usually belongs in the paper as well as the letter.
