 I think if someone has never written anything before, it's probably easier to be part of a team, especially if you compare with a more senior mentor who can help facilitate the process a bit. Writing can be a really lonely endeavor and I think if people aren't used to it, it's almost easier if you're part of a team because someone takes the lead of writing the introduction. Maybe someone writes the method section and someone else does the conclusion and then you don't feel like you carry the burden yourself. I really enjoy the team aspect of it. I think that having the discussions with other people really keeps the content fresh. Having the complementary expertise makes it so that the end result, I think the paper has more utility to a broader audience. I think there's a lot of discussion that needs to happen up front, not to leave a lot of those decisions to chance or to kind of considerations afterwards. Some of the key considerations when you're thinking about multi-author teams is again really have those discussions up front as far as what is expected of authors, roles, contributions, have deadlines and expectations clearly set. One advice I would give is make sure you're very clear about the order of the authors. I've heard of a lot of cases. I never had it happen because I had this sage advice that I followed but there's always the issue of someone thinks they contributed more than somebody else and they think they should be first or second author and there was a miscommunication. In nursing that I'm familiar with, typically the first author is the author of primary importance. They're the ones that are PI, they did the most work. You need to kind of consider people's writing styles so are you going to be able to eventually blend this into one voice and how that's going to work? It's not the same priority for everybody so even when you set deadlines often people don't meet them or you'll have the challenge of people having really different writing styles and so typically it's that first author that has to kind of rewrite things so that it feels like it's got a nice flow. Collectively as a team agree on what the expected contributions are, timelines, again just to avoid disappointments, misunderstandings that can really be harmful to a writing team. And I think the other thing that we tend to forget is discussing people's work styles. Some of the frustrations that come up in any kind of group setting is I'm a person who likes to maybe even get in ahead of my deadlines and having somebody that doesn't submit until the deadline or a little bit after can be kind of stressful so it doesn't mean that all of your work styles have to be 100% compatible but you do need to understand how people are going to approach it. Like how you want to organize content, do you want maybe smaller groups of two working on selected sections, if you have a team of four or five or is each person working on a designated area, have the designated, if you are going to be the lead, be mindful that it's not just cutting and pasting all the pieces together but taking a look at how you want to connect those portions of the paper so that you really have a good seamless manuscript that can be successful in getting a favorable review.