Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology

@article{Wu2019LargeTD,
  title={Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology},
  author={Lingfei Wu and Dashun Wang and James A. Evans},
  journal={Nature},
  year={2019},
  volume={566},
  pages={378-382}
}
One of the most universal trends in science and technology today is the growth of large teams in all areas, as solitary researchers and small teams diminish in prevalence1–3. Increases in team size have been attributed to the specialization of scientific activities3, improvements in communication technology4,5, or the complexity of modern problems that require interdisciplinary solutions6–8. This shift in team size raises the question of whether and how the character of the science and… 
Flat teams drive scientific innovation
TLDR
It is found 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.
On the disruptive power of small-teams research
TLDR
It is argued that individuals in possession of research ideas with great disruptive potential have incentives to form small teams and compensate potential group weaknesses with a greater research effort rather than considering additional co-authors.
China may need to support more small teams in scientific research
TLDR
China's research output is more dominated by big teams than the rest of the world, and using the national average as the baseline, it is found that the National Natural Science Foundation of China supports fewer small team works than the National Science foundation of U.S. does, implying that big teams are more preferred by grant agencies in China.
The critical role of fresh teams in creating original and multi-disciplinary research
TLDR
This paper quantifies the team freshness according to the absent of prior collaboration among team members and finds that freshness defined by new team members in a paper is a more effective indicator of research originality and multi-disciplinarity compared to freshnessdefined by new collaboration relations amongteam members.
The dominance of big teams in China’s scientific output
TLDR
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, and this finding provides new insights into the concern of originality and innovation in China, which indicates a need to balance small and big teams.
Influence, Information and Team Outcomes in Large Scale Software Development
  • Subhajit Datta
  • Computer Science
    2019 26th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC)
  • 2019
TLDR
The results suggest that merely facilitating easy interaction between team members may not be sufficient to enhance team outcomes, and the design of efficient collaborative development environments, and devising tools and processes for team assembly and governance can be informed by the results.
The Rise of Research Teams: Benefits and Costs in Economics
E conomics research is increasingly a team activity: economists increasingly coauthor their papers, and these coauthored papers have a large and increasing impact advantage. This “rise of teams”
Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography # 21 . 04 Better by design ? Collaboration and performance in the boardgame industry
We study team-work among board-game designers to bring new insights on the effect of team composition on performance. Team-work in game design is an informal and unstructured process that strongly
Fresh teams are associated with original and multidisciplinary research.
TLDR
The team freshness is quantified according to the absence of prior collaboration among team members to suggest that papers produced by fresher teams are associated with greater originality and a greater multidisciplinary impact.
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 52 REFERENCES
Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution
  • S. Milojevic
  • Geology
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
  • 2014
TLDR
This study presents a model that successfully explains how team sizes in various fields have evolved over the past half century and constructs an analytical functional form that allows the contribution of different modes of authorship to be determined directly from the data and is applicable to any field.
Understanding the group dynamics and success of teams
TLDR
It is found that highly successful Teams are significantly more focused than average teams of the same size, that their members have worked on more diverse sets of projects, and the members of highly successful teams are more likely to be core members or ‘leads’ of other teams.
The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge
TLDR
It is demonstrated that teams increasingly dominate solo authors in the production of knowledge, suggesting that the process of knowledge creation has fundamentally changed.
Multi-University Research Teams: Shifting Impact, Geography, and Stratification in Science
TLDR
It is found that multi-university collaborations are the fastest growing type of authorship structure, produce the highest-impact papers when they include a top-tier university, and are increasingly stratified by in-group university rank.
From Sole Investigator to Team Scientist: Trends in the Practice and Study of Research Collaboration
This article reviews trends in the practice and study of research collaboration, focusing on journal publications in academic science. I briefly describe the different styles and types of
Team Assembly Mechanisms Determine Collaboration Network Structure and Team Performance
TLDR
A model for the self-assembly of creative teams that has its basis in three parameters: team size, the fraction of newcomers in new productions, and the tendency of incumbents to repeat previous collaborations is proposed.
The Burden of Knowledge and the &Apos;Death of the Renaissance Man&Apos;: Is Innovation Getting Harder?
This paper investigates, theoretically and empirically, a possibly fundamental aspect of technological progress. If knowledge accumulates as technology progresses, then successive generations of
Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact
TLDR
Analysis of 17.9 million research articles across five decades of the Web of Science suggests that science follows a nearly universal pattern: the highest-impact science is primarily grounded in exceptionally conventional combinations of prior work yet simultaneously features an intrusion of unusual combinations.
Cross-disciplinary research: What configurations of fields of science are found in grant proposals today?
Considering the complexity of the world problems, it seems evident that they do not fit straightforwardly into a disciplinary framework. In this context, the question arises as to whether and how
Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science.
TLDR
A collaborative team science concept-mapping evaluation methodology combined group process with statistical analysis to derive a conceptual framework that identifies research areas of team science and their relative importance to the emerging SciTS field.
...
...