Magnetic field and current density imaging using off-line lock-in analysis

M. Kögel,F. Altmann,S. Tismer,S. Brand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microrel.2016.07.083

2016-09-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The critical role of fresh teams in creating original and multi-disciplinary research

An Zeng,Ying Fan,Zengru Di,Yougui Wang,Shlomo Havlin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2007.05985

2020-07-12

Physics and Society

Abstract:Teamwork is one of the most prominent features in modern science. It is now well-understood that the team size is an important factor that affects team creativity. However, the crucial question of how the character of research studies is influenced by the freshness of the team remains unclear. In this paper, we quantify the team freshness according to the absent of prior collaboration among team members. Our results suggest that fresher teams tend to produce works of higher originality and more multi-disciplinary impact. These effects are even magnified in larger teams. Furthermore, we find that freshness defined by new team members in a paper is a more effective indicator of research originality and multi-disciplinarity compared to freshness defined by new collaboration relations among team members. Finally, we show that career freshness of members also plays an important role in increasing the originality and multi-disciplinarity of produced papers.
Team formation and team performance: The balance between team freshness and repeat collaboration

Meijun Liu,Ajay Jaiswal,Yi Bu,Chao Min,Sijie Yang,Zhibo Liu,Daniel Daniel Acuña,Ying Ding

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.08756

2022-05-18

Digital Libraries

Abstract:Incorporating fresh members in teams is considered a pathway to team creativity. However, whether freshness improves team performance or not remains unclear, as well as the optimal involvement of fresh members for team performance. This study uses a group of authors on the byline of a publication as a proxy for a scientific team. We extend an indicator, i.e., team freshness, to measure the extent to which a scientific team incorporates new members, by calculating the fraction of new collaboration relations established within the team. Based on more than 43 million scientific publications covering more than a half-century of research from Microsoft Academic Graph, this study provides a holistic picture of the current development of team freshness by outlining the temporal evolution of freshness, and its disciplinary distribution. Subsequently, using a multivariable regression approach, we examine the association between team freshness and papers'short-term and long-term citations.The major findings are as follows: (1)team freshness in scientific teams has been increasing in the past half-century; (2)there exists an inverted-U-shaped association between team freshness and papers' citations in all the disciplines and in different periods;(3)the inverted-U-shaped relationship between team freshness and papers' citations is only found in small teams, while, in large teams, team freshness is significantly positively related to papers' citations.
Team formation and team impact: The balance between team freshness and repeat collaboration

Meijun Liu,Ajay Jaiswal,Yi Bu,Chao Min,Sijie Yang,Zhibo Liu,Daniel Acuna,Ying Ding

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101337

IF: 3.7

2022-01-01

Journal of Informetrics

Abstract:Incorporating fresh members into teams is considered a pathway to team creativity. However, whether freshness improves team performance or not remains unclear, as well as the optimal involvement of fresh members for team performance. Focusing on team impact, one important dimension of team performance, this study uses a group of authors on the byline of a publication as a proxy for a scientific team and quantifies team impact by citations of a paper authored by this team, i.e., article team impact. We extend an indicator, i.e., article team freshness, to measure the extent to which a scientific team incorporates new members, by calculating the fraction of new collaboration relations established within the team. Based on more than 43 million scientific publications covering more than a half-century of research from Microsoft Academic Graph, this study provides a holistic picture of the current development of article team freshness by outlin-ing the temporal evolution of freshness, and its disciplinary distribution. Subsequently, using a multivariable regression approach, we examine the association between article team freshness and papers' short-term and long-term citations. The major findings are as follows: (1) article team freshness in scientific teams has been increasing in the past half-century; (2) there exists an inverted-U-shaped association between article team freshness and papers' citations in all the disciplines and different periods; (3) article team impact is hampered by article team freshness in small-sized teams, while medium-sized and large-sized teams can benefit more from article team freshness before the fraction of new collaboration reaches its turning point. The findings of this study provide implications for the practice of team formation and team management in science.
Relationships Between Work Team Climate, Individual Motivation, and Creativity

Y. -Q. Zhu,D. G. Gardner,H. -G Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316638161

IF: 13.5

2016-01-01

Journal of Management

Abstract:Creativity of employees is a major focus of research in the organization sciences. In this study we examine the relationships between both micro (intrinsic and extrinsic motivation) and molar (team climate) variables with manager-rated creativity of R&D employees. Specifically, we hypothesize that (a) extrinsic motivation has a direct relationship with creativity, (b) intrinsic motivation is more strongly related to creativity when extrinsic motivation is low compared to when it is high, (c) team collaborative and competitive climates have direct effects on creativity as well as indirect effects through individual motivation, and (d) intrinsic motivation mediates relationships of the climate variables with creativity, which in turn is moderated by extrinsic motivation. Data were collected from R&D engineers and their managers at a large high-tech company headquartered in Taiwan. Results indicate that a collaborative team climate has a direct positive relationship with creativity as well as one that operates through intrinsic motivation, which in turn was moderated by employee’s extrinsic motivation level. A competitive team climate positively related to extrinsic motivation, but extrinsic motivation did not directly relate to creativity. However, extrinsic motivation did have strong relationships with creativity when intrinsic motivation was low. Results suggest that perhaps the different types of motivation relate to different types of creativity (incremental versus radical). Managerial and theoretical implications of results are discussed as are the study’s limitations.
Expertise diversity of teams predicts originality and long-term impact in science and technology

Hongwei Zheng,Weihua Li,Dashun Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.04422

2022-10-10

Physics and Society

Abstract:Despite the growing importance of teams in producing innovative and high-impact science and technology, it remains unclear how expertise diversity among team members relates to the originality and impact of the work they produce. Here, we develop a new method to quantify the expertise distance of researchers based on their prior career histories and apply it to 23 million scientific publications and 4 million patents. We find that across science and technology, expertise-diverse teams tend to produce work with greater originality. Teams with more diverse expertise have no significant impact advantage in the short- (2 years) or mid-term (5 years). Instead, they exhibit substantially higher long-term impact (10 years), increasingly attracting larger cross-disciplinary influence. This impact premium of expertise diversity among team members becomes especially pronounced when other dimensions of team diversity are missing, as teams within the same institution or country appear to disproportionately reap the benefits of expertise diversity. While gender-diverse teams have relatively higher impact on average, teams with varied levels of gender diversity all seem to benefit from increased expertise diversity. Given the growing knowledge demands on individual researchers, implementation of incentives for original research, and the tradeoffs between short-term and long-term impacts, these results may have implications for funding, assembling, and retaining teams with originality and long-lasting impacts.
Collaboration Diversity and Scientific Impact

Yuxiao Dong,Hao Ma,Jie Tang,Kuansan Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1806.03694

2018-06-10

Digital Libraries

Abstract:The shift from individual effort to collaborative output has benefited science, with scientific work pursued collaboratively having increasingly led to more highly impactful research than that pursued individually. However, understanding of how the diversity of a collaborative team influences the production of knowledge and innovation is sorely lacking. Here, we study this question by breaking down the process of scientific collaboration of 32.9 million papers over the last five decades. We find that the probability of producing a top-cited publication increases as a function of the diversity of a team of collaborators---namely, the distinct number of institutions represented by the team. We discover striking phenomena where a smaller, yet more diverse team is more likely to generate highly innovative work than a relatively larger team within one institution. We demonstrate that the synergy of collaboration diversity is universal across different generations, research fields, and tiers of institutions and individual authors. Our findings suggest that collaboration diversity strongly and positively correlates with the production of scientific innovation, giving rise to the potential revolution of the policies used by funding agencies and authorities to fund research projects, and broadly the principles used to organize teams, organizations, and societies.
Team careers in science: formation, composition and success of persistent collaborations

Sandeep Chowdhary,Luca Gallo,Federico Musciotto,Federico Battiston

2024-07-17

Abstract:Teams are the fundamental units propelling innovation and advancing modern science. A rich literature links the fundamental features of teams, such as their size and diversity, to academic success. However, such analyses fail to capture temporal patterns, treating each group of co-authors as a distinct unit and neglecting the existence of persistent collaborations. By contrast, teams are dynamical entities, made of core members who consistently work together, surrounded by transient members who sporadically participate. Leveraging on a large dataset of over 205 million scientific papers published since 1900, we extract 511,550 core teams of statistically significant persistent collaborations of pairs and larger groups of scientists. We look into `team careers' investigating their trajectories in time, characterizing their formation, productivity and eventual dissolution. We characterize team composition along multiple dimensions, including age, academic affiliation and scientific disciplines. Finally, we investigate the academic impact of persistent collaborations, hallmarking the key compositional features underlying their success. Our work sheds light on the nature of persistent teams, informing researchers, institutions and funding agencies about the dynamics of their formation, evolution and success.

Physics and Society
From Individual Creativity to Team Creativity:The Effect of Knowledge Diversity

Gang ZHANG,Jie L(U)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-6020.2012.04.008

2012-01-01

Abstract:In increasingly complex and uncertain environments,many organizations have turned to team-based work systems to increase their ability to foster innovation,requiring team members to integrate diverse knowledge and think creatively.Team creativity can occur as members interact with each other,as they share,build upon,and critique ideas together.Thus,we propose that team creativity is positively influenced by individual creativity and knowledge diversity,and the interaction of them is significant.The study designed the Chinese Remote Associates Test(CRAT) items and the task measured team creativity in the same logic,and carried out experimental studies to explore these questions.The present study demonstrated that team creativity might not be determined by team members' creativity.The interaction of team members can synergistically enhance team creative processes.Further,knowledge diversity actually benefits team performance,which can lead to better ideas,novel work process and innovative solutions.
Interdisciplinary collaboration from diverse science teams can produce significant outcomes

Alison Specht,Kevin Crowston

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278043

IF: 3.7

2022-11-30

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Scientific teams are increasingly diverse in discipline, international scope and demographics. Diversity has been found to be a driver of innovation but also can be a source of interpersonal friction. Drawing on a mixed-method study of 22 scientific working groups, this paper presents evidence that team diversity has a positive impact on scientific output (i.e., the number of journal papers and citations) through the mediation of the interdisciplinarity of the collaborative process, as evidenced by publishing in and citing more diverse sources. Ironically these factors also seem to be related to lower team member satisfaction and perceived effectiveness, countered by the gender balance of the team. Qualitative data suggests additional factors that facilitate collaboration, such as trust and leadership. Our findings have implications for team design and management, as team diversity seems beneficial, but the process of integration can be difficult and needs management to lead to a productive and innovative process.

multidisciplinary sciences
Flat Teams Drive Scientific Innovation

Fengli Xu,Lingfei Wu,James Evans

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2200927119

2022-01-20

Abstract:With teams growing in all areas of scientific and scholarly research, we explore the relationship between team structure and the character of knowledge they produce. Drawing on 89,575 self-reports of team member research activity underlying scientific publications, we show how individual activities cohere into broad roles of (1) leadership through the direction and presentation of research and (2) support through data collection, analysis and discussion. The hidden hierarchy of a scientific team is characterized by its lead (or L)-ratio of members playing leadership roles to total team size. The L-ratio is validated through correlation with imputed contributions to the specific paper and to science as a whole, which we use to effectively extrapolate the L-ratio for 16,397,750 papers where roles are not explicit. We find that relative to flat, egalitarian teams, tall, hierarchical teams produce less novelty and more often develop existing ideas; increase productivity for those on top and decrease it for those beneath; increase short-term citations but decrease long-term influence. These effects hold within-person -- the same person on the same-sized team produces science much more likely to disruptively innovate if they work on a flat, high L-ratio team. These results suggest the critical role flat teams play for sustainable scientific advance and the training and advancement of scientists.

Digital Libraries,Computers and Society
The dominance of big teams in China’s scientific output

Linlin Liu,Jianfei Yu,Junming Huang,Feng Xia,Tao Jia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00099

2021-01-01

Quantitative Science Studies

Abstract:Abstract Modern science is dominated by scientific productions from teams. A recent finding shows that teams of both large and small sizes are essential in research, prompting us to analyze the extent to which a country’s scientific work is carried out by big or small teams. Here, using over 26 million publications from Web of Science, we find that China’s research output is more dominated by big teams than the rest of the world, which is particularly the case in fields of natural science. Despite the global trend that more papers are written by big teams, China’s drop in small team output is much steeper. As teams in China shift from small to large size, the team diversity that is essential for innovative work does not increase as much as that in other countries. Using the national average as the baseline, we find that the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) supports fewer small teams than the National Science Foundation (NSF) of the United States does, implying that big teams are preferred by grant agencies in China. Our finding provides new insights into the concern of originality and innovation in China, which indicates a need to balance small and big teams.
Does collaboration bring high-impact studies? A preliminary study.

Chao Lu,Yi Bu,Chenwei Zhang,Ying Ding,Vetle I. Torvik,Chengzhi Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401142

2017-01-01

Abstract:ABSTRACT Team formation becomes important when scientific collaborations become common and important to scholars. This study initially tries to understand how research team size may influence the impact of a study measured by number of citations. Thus, publications in the biology domain are specifically investigated by correlation analysis between team size and scientific impact. The weak correlation suggests that larger team size can positively increase the impact of scientific publications on average; however, it cannot literally bring more highly cited articles.
The dominance of big teams in China's scientific output

Linlin Liu,Jianfei Yu,Junming Huang,Feng Xia,Tao Jia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2003.01108

2020-02-29

Digital Libraries

Abstract:Modern science is dominated by scientific productions from teams. A recent finding shows that teams with both large and small sizes are essential in research, prompting us to analyze the extent to which a country's scientific work is carried out by big/small teams. Here, using over 26 million publications from Web of Science, we find that China's research output is more dominated by big teams than the rest of the world, which is particularly the case in fields of natural science. Despite the global trend that more papers are done by big teams, China's drop in small team output is much steeper. As teams in China shift from small to large size, the team diversity that is essential for innovative works does not increase as much as that in other countries. Using the national average as the baseline, we find that the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) supports fewer small team works than the National Science Foundation of U.S. (NSF) does, implying that big teams are more preferred by grant agencies in China. Our finding provides new insights into the concern of originality and innovation in China, which urges a need to balance small and big teams.
The Impact of Knowledge Difference and Knowledge Conflict on the Creativity of Team

Zhang Gang,Ni Xudong

2007-01-01

Acta Psychologica Sinica

Abstract:Introduction There are 2 approaches in the area of team diversity research.The first approach is to categorize types of diversity and then subdivide it.Scholars subdivided the diversity into race,age,gender,character,functional background,tenure,educational level,and so on,and then studied the effects of diversity on performance.The second approach is to study the intervening process,i.e.,conflict,which enables to determine the mechanism of the effect of diversity on performance.However,previous studies have some limitations.First,there is no comparison study on the 2 approaches.Secondly,previous studies hardly separated knowledge difference from diversity.Thirdly,these studies distinguished only the types of diversity but not the level of diversity.Hence,our study separated knowledge difference from team diversity and explored 3 questions.First,what is the impact of knowledge difference on team performance? Second,what is the difference between influence of knowledge difference alone and knowledge difference along with knowledge conflict on team performance? Third,what is the impact of different levels of knowledge difference on team performance? Method This study applied the experimental method and adopted a 2×2 between-subjects design.The independent variables were knowledge difference(2 levels:high and low) and knowledge conflict(2 levels:existent and inexistent).The dependent variable was creativity marks of the team.The experimental task required each team to present an innovative project based on experimental materials.Three experts used a 9-point rule to assign marks to these projects based on the level of creativity.The marks assigned by the 3 experts were summed to obtain the total creativity marks of each team.A total of 162 students(40 teams) participated in this experiment.ANOVA was used to analyze the data.Results 1.When the level of knowledge difference was low,knowledge conflict played a positive role in team creativity;in contrast,when the level of knowledge difference was high,knowledge conflict may facilitate or restrain creativity.Thus,knowledge conflict played a fluctuating role.2.When knowledge conflict was inexistent,high level of knowledge difference played a positive role in team creativity;when knowledge conflict was existent,the impact of teams with high level of knowledge difference on team creativity was not significantly different from that of teams with low level of knowledge difference.Conclusion In this study,knowledge difference was separated from team diversity and was associated with the variable of knowledge conflict in order to determine their effects on team creativity.There is an interaction between knowledge difference and knowledge conflict.Pure knowledge difference always positively affects creativity;however,when it is accompanied with knowledge conflict,mixed effects are observed.Knowledge difference along with knowledge conflict will not only strengthen creativity but also restrain it;this increases the risk of hampering team creativity.If the team needs to be considerably more creative,knowledge conflict should be encouraged in order to generate novel ideas.Although the cost of encouraging knowledge conflict involves the risk of considerably lower performance,it is worthy of implementing this strategy.If the team needs to be considerably more efficient,knowledge conflict should be restrained in order to achieve stable performance.
The Impact of Supervisor’s Creativity Expectation on Team Creativity

LIU Weiguo,FANG Yanran,SHI Junqi,MO Shenjiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1041.2018.00667

2018-01-01

Abstract:Team creativity is becoming more and more essential for organizations to adapt to dynamically changing environment. Previous literature on team creativity was mainly focused on the impact of leadership behavior on employees' creative motivation and subsequent creative performance. Less attention has been paid to employees' cognitive response to leaders' expectation on creativity. Therefore, based on normative reference group theory and process-oriented theory of knowledge emergence in teams, the current study attempted to examine the mediating effects of employees' behaviors in response to supervisor's creativity expectation (i.e., team knowledge exchange behavior and team boundary spanning behavior), and investigate the moderating role of supervisor's creative role identity. Data was collected from 568 employees working in 116 teams from four IT and software companies in Beijing and Shenzhen, China. Three waves of data collection were conducted. In the first wave, participants were required to report their demographic information (e.g. age, gender, education, and tenure), and their perceptions of supervisors' creativity expectation. In the second wave, participants assessed team knowledge exchange behavior and team boundary spanning behavior. In the third wave, team supervisors evaluated their own creative role identity and team creativity. We used Mplus 7.2 to estimate our hypothesized models. Results showed that: 1) supervisors' creativity expectation was positively related to both team knowledge exchange behavior and team boundary spanning behavior. 2) Team knowledge exchange behavior was positively associated with team creativity, whereas the relationship between team boundary spanning behavior and team creativity was not significant. 3) Supervisors' creative role identity significantly moderated the relationship between team boundary spanning behavior and team creativity. Specifically, when supervisors had high level of creative role identity, team boundary spanning behavior did not distract from team creativity, whereas when supervisors' creative role identity was low, team boundary spanning behavior harmed team creativity. The moderating effect of supervisor's creative role identity on the relationship between team knowledge exchange behavior and team creativity was not significant. The current study contributes to the literature of team creativity in several aspects. First, different from previous team creativity literature, this study demonstrated a cognitive model explaining how team leader's creativity expectation influences team creativity. Second, this study extended the normative reference group theory by clarifying the roles of leader's creativity expectation and creative role identity in enhancing team creativity. Specifically, our study implies that both of team knowledge exchange behavior and team boundary spanning behavior are both stimulated by team supervisors' creativity expectation. More importantly, supervisors' creative role identity plays an important role in mitigating the negative effects of team boundary spanning behavior on team creativity. Third, this study also contributed to the process-oriented theory of knowledge emergence in teams by demonstrating the essential role of leader in enhancing the collective process of creative knowledge learning and sharing. Accordingly, managerial implications regarding team creativity management are discussed. We suggest that supervisors in knowledge-intensive companies should always be a real creator to enhance team creativity.
Remote Collaboration Fuses Fewer Breakthrough Ideas

Yiling Lin,Carl Benedikt Frey,Lingfei Wu

2023-10-27

Abstract:Theories of innovation emphasize the role of social networks and teams as facilitators of breakthrough discoveries. Around the world, scientists and inventors today are more plentiful and interconnected than ever before. But while there are more people making discoveries, and more ideas that can be reconfigured in novel ways, research suggests that new ideas are getting harder to find-contradicting recombinant growth theory. In this paper, we shed new light on this apparent puzzle. Analyzing 20 million research articles and 4 million patent applications across the globe over the past half-century, we begin by documenting the rise of remote collaboration across cities, underlining the growing interconnectedness of scientists and inventors globally. We further show that across all fields, periods, and team sizes, researchers in these remote teams are consistently less likely to make breakthrough discoveries relative to their onsite counterparts. Creating a dataset that allows us to explore the division of labor in knowledge production within teams and across space, we find that among distributed team members, collaboration centers on late-stage, technical tasks involving more codified knowledge. Yet they are less likely to join forces in conceptual tasks-such as conceiving new ideas and designing research-when knowledge is tacit. We conclude that despite striking improvements in digital technology in recent years, remote teams are less likely to integrate the knowledge of their members to produce new, disruptive ideas.

Computers and Society,General Economics
Impactful scientists have higher tendency to involve collaborators in new topics

An Zeng,Ying Fan,Zengru Di,Yougui Wang,Shlomo Havlin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2208.06682

2022-08-13

Digital Libraries

Abstract:In scientific research, collaboration is one of the most effective ways to take advantage of new ideas, skills, resources, and for performing interdisciplinary research. Although collaboration networks have been intensively studied, the question of how individual scientists choose collaborators to study a new research topic remains almost unexplored. Here, we investigate the statistics and mechanisms of collaborations of individual scientists along their careers, revealing that, in general, collaborators are involved in significantly fewer topics than expected from controlled surrogate. In particular, we find that highly productive scientists tend to have higher fraction of single-topic collaborators, while highly cited, i.e., impactful, scientists have higher fraction of multi-topic collaborators. We also suggest a plausible mechanism for this distinction. Moreover, we investigate the cases where scientists involve existing collaborators into a new topic. We find that compared to productive scientists, impactful scientists show strong preference of collaboration with high impact scientists on a new topic. Finally, we validate our findings by investigating active scientists in different years and across different disciplines.
Quantifying team chemistry in scientific collaboration

Gangmin Son,Jinhyuk Yun,Hawoong Jeong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2202.07252

2022-02-15

Physics and Society

Abstract:Team chemistry is the holy grail of understanding collaborative human behavior, yet its quantitative understanding remains inconclusive. To reveal the presence and mechanisms of team chemistry in scientific collaboration, we reconstruct the publication histories of 560,689 individual scientists and 1,026,196 duos of scientists. We identify ability discrepancies between teams and their members, enabling us to evaluate team chemistry in a way that is robust against prior experience of collaboration and inherent randomness. Furthermore, our network analysis uncovers a nontrivial modular structure that allows us to predict team chemistry between scientists who have never collaborated before. Research interest is the highest correlated ingredient of team chemistry among six personal characteristics that have been commonly attributed as the keys to successful collaboration, yet the diversity of the characteristics cannot completely explain team chemistry. Our results may lead to unlocking the hidden potential of collaboration by the matching of well-paired scientists.
Understanding the assembly of interdisciplinary teams and its impact on performance

Alina Lungeanu,Yun Huang,Noshir S. Contractor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.10.006

IF: 3.7

2014-01-01

Journal of Informetrics

Abstract:Interdisciplinary teams are assembled in scientific research and are aimed at solving complex problems. Given their increasing importance, it is not surprising that considerable attention has been focused on processes of collaboration in interdisciplinary teams. Despite such efforts, we know less about the factors affecting the assembly of such teams in the first place. In this paper, we investigate the structure and the success of interdisciplinary scientific research teams. We examine the assembly factors using a sample of 1,103 grant proposals submitted to two National Science Foundation interdisciplinary initiatives during a 3-year period, including both awarded and non-awarded proposals. The results indicate that individuals' likelihood of collaboration on a proposal is higher among those with longer tenure, lower institutional tier, lower H-index, and with higher levels of prior co-authorship and citation relationships. However, successful proposals have a little bit different relational patterns: individuals' likelihood of collaboration is higher among those with lower institutional tier, lower H-index, (female) gender, higher levels of prior co-authorship, but with lower levels of prior citation relationships.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Large Teams Have Developed Science and Technology; Small Teams Have Disrupted It

Lingfei Wu,Dashun Wang,James A. Evans

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1709.02445

2017-09-07

Physics and Society

Abstract:Teams dominate the production of high-impact science and technology. Analyzing teamwork from more than 50 million papers, patents, and software products, 1954-2014, we demonstrate across this period that larger teams developed recent, popular ideas, while small teams disrupted the system by drawing on older and less prevalent ideas. Attention to work from large teams came immediately, while advances by small teams succeeded further into the future. Differences between small and large teams magnify with impact - small teams have become known for disruptive work and large teams for developing work. Differences in topic and re- search design account for part of the relationship between team size and disruption, but most of the effect occurs within people, controlling for detailed subject and article type. Our findings suggest the importance of supporting both small and large teams for the sustainable vitality of science and technology.

Magnetic field and current density imaging using off-line lock-in analysis

The critical role of fresh teams in creating original and multi-disciplinary research

Team formation and team performance: The balance between team freshness and repeat collaboration

Team formation and team impact: The balance between team freshness and repeat collaboration

Relationships Between Work Team Climate, Individual Motivation, and Creativity

Expertise diversity of teams predicts originality and long-term impact in science and technology

Collaboration Diversity and Scientific Impact

Team careers in science: formation, composition and success of persistent collaborations

From Individual Creativity to Team Creativity:The Effect of Knowledge Diversity

Interdisciplinary collaboration from diverse science teams can produce significant outcomes

Flat Teams Drive Scientific Innovation

The dominance of big teams in China’s scientific output

Does collaboration bring high-impact studies? A preliminary study.

The dominance of big teams in China's scientific output

The Impact of Knowledge Difference and Knowledge Conflict on the Creativity of Team

The Impact of Supervisor’s Creativity Expectation on Team Creativity

Remote Collaboration Fuses Fewer Breakthrough Ideas

Impactful scientists have higher tendency to involve collaborators in new topics

Quantifying team chemistry in scientific collaboration

Understanding the assembly of interdisciplinary teams and its impact on performance

Large Teams Have Developed Science and Technology; Small Teams Have Disrupted It