Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution

被引:169
作者
Milojevic, Stasa [1 ]
机构
[1] Indiana Univ, Sch Informat & Comp, Bloomington, IN 47401 USA
关键词
team science; cumulative advantage; COLLABORATION NETWORK; POWER LAWS; COAUTHORSHIP; SCIENCE; DISTRIBUTIONS; PATTERNS; SEARCH;
D O I
10.1073/pnas.1309723111
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
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 y. 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 (10-1,000 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.
引用
收藏
页码:3984 / 3989
页数:6
相关论文
共 40 条
[11]   Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data [J].
Clauset, Aaron ;
Shalizi, Cosma Rohilla ;
Newman, M. E. J. .
SIAM REVIEW, 2009, 51 (04) :661-703
[12]   A cast of thousands: Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy [J].
Cronin, B ;
Shaw, D ;
La Barre, K .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2003, 54 (09) :855-871
[13]  
Cronin B, 2001, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V52, P558, DOI 10.1002/asi.1097
[14]   6 AUTHORS IN SEARCH OF A CITATION - VILLAINS OR VICTIMS OF THE VANCOUVER CONVENTION [J].
EPSTEIN, RJ .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1993, 306 (6880) :765-767
[15]  
Feller W., 1968, INTRO PROBABILITY TH
[16]   The transition from an individual science to a collective one: The case of astronomy [J].
Fernandez, JA .
SCIENTOMETRICS, 1998, 42 (01) :61-74
[17]  
Gibbons M., 1994, NEW PRODUCTION KNOWL, DOI DOI 10.4324/9781315669366-1
[18]  
Glänzel W, 2002, LIBR TRENDS, V50, P461
[19]   Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance [J].
Guimerà, R ;
Uzzi, B ;
Spiro, J ;
Amaral, LAN .
SCIENCE, 2005, 308 (5722) :697-702
[20]  
Hagstrom WO., 1965, The scientific community