Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution

Abstract

Research teams are the fundamental social unit of science, and yet there is currently no model that describes their basic property: size. In most fields teams have grown significantly in recent decades. We show that this is partly due to the change in the character of team-size distribution. We explain these changes with a comprehensive yet straightforward model of how teams of different sizes emerge and grow. This model accurately reproduces the evolution of empirical team-size distribution over the period of 50 years. The modeling reveals that there are two modes of knowledge production. The first and more fundamental mode employs relatively small, core teams. Core teams form by a Poisson process and produce a Poisson distribution of team sizes in which larger teams are exceedingly rare. The second mode employs extended teams, which started as core teams, but subsequently accumulated new members proportional to the past productivity of their members. Given time, this mode gives rise to a power-law tail of large teams (10-1000 members), which features in many fields today. Based on this model we construct 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. The model also offers a solid foundation for studying other social aspects of science, such as productivity and collaboration.Comment: Published in PNAS. Model tested on astronomy. Published version and Supplemental Information available at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.130972311

The bureaucratization of science

“…While this trend began decades ago (Price, 1963;Swatez, 1966), the sizes of contemporary research teams in many fields are beginning to approach that of medium-sized firms (Biagioli, 2003;Birnholtz, 2006;Milojević, 2014;Pavlidis et al, 2014;Salonius, 2008). Rather than a focus on an individual's lab bench, scientific work increasingly takes place in a setting that more closely resembles a small "factory" or "quasi-firm", run by a "small businessperson" lab director (Etzkowitz, 1983;Hackett, 1990;Latour and Woolgar, 1979;Shrum et al, 2007).…”

Competitive Science: Is Competition Ruining Science?

“…The need for diverse research approaches and transdisciplinary teams to address complex problems is increasingly recognized (39). However, a greater emphasis on "team science" will require a radical reconsideration of how scientists are organized, supported, and rewarded (40)(41)(42).…”

Network Analysis and Indicators

“…However, it also has a so-called hook for the authors with small number of collaborators, a feature identified by Wagner and Leydesdorff (2005) and further studied in Milojević (2010). This feature is important and the recent model of scientific research team formation and evolution (Milojević, 2014) has identified the likely underlying reason for its existence. It follows from two modes of knowledge production: one with relatively small core teams following Poisson distribution and another with extended teams which due to preferential attachment can become very large.…”