A good collaboration listing answers three questions in the first screen: what is the study about, what tasks are open, and what credit is on offer. Scauthor shows a brief title and abstract publicly — treat those fields as your pitch, not your full grant application.
List contribution stages precisely. “Needs statistics” is weak; “Survival analysis on cleaned cohort, STATA or R, 4–6 weeks” invites serious applicants. Open stages appear as pills on Discover; specificity improves match quality in recommendations too.
State authorship terms plainly: co-authorship offer, author order policy, and target journal if you have one. Surprises after acceptance waste everyone’s time and erode trust on the platform.
Set a realistic submission timeline. Contributors judge whether they can commit from that date. If you are exploratory and timeline is flexible, say so — but distinguish “flexible” from “undefined”.
Review applications for fit to the stage, not just credential prestige. Scauthor’s workflow — interest, acceptance, commitment, shared document, submission, review — exists so you can evaluate intent and communication, not only CV lines.