Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reflections on and a short review of the science of team science

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We provide a short overview of the science of team science (SciTS). Starting from the notion of a scientific team, we move to interdisciplinary studies and finally the Science of Team Science itself. We describe the main areas of research in this field. As co-authorship networks may grow over time, which can lead to a future “global brain”, understanding how teams work and what leads to their failure or success is of the utmost importance. A thorough study of team science in all its aspects needs a collaborative, interdisciplinary and international approach. Such an approach will result in reaching the main objective of SciTS, namely to use science to transform the ways researchers do science and to enhance their effectiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Academies, N. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J., Loach, T., & Szomszor, M. (2015). The diversity of UK research and knowledge. Digital Research Reports (Digital Science, London).

  • Albon, C. (2016). 'Tiger teams' will apply new space vision to plans for future constellations. Inside Missile Defense, 22(9), 11–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, A., & Kendall, E. (2010). Translating knowledge into practice and policy: The role of knowledge networks in primary health care. Health Information Management, 39(2), 9–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asai, D. (2019). To learn inclusion skills, make it personal. Nature, 565(7741), 537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumann, T. (2004). Defining ethnicity. SAA Archaeological Record, 4(4), 12–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. T., Brown, S. G., Colaneri, A., & Outland, N. (2018). Team composition and the ABCs of teamwork. American Psychologist, 73(4), 349–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booij, L. H. D. J., & van Leeuwen, E. (2008). Teamwork and the legal and ethical responsibility of the anaesthetist. Current Opinion in Anesthesiology, 21(2), 178–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börner, K., Contractor, N., Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., Fiore, S. M., Hall, K. L., Keyton, J., et al. (2010). A multi-level systems perspective for the Science of Team Science. Science Translational Medicine, 2(49), 24–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börner, K., Dall’Asta, L., Ke, W. M., & Vespignani, A.  (2005). Studying the emerging global brain: Analyzing and visualizing the impact of co-authorship teams. Complexity, 10(4), 57–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., & Schubert, A. (2003). A quantitative view on the coming of age of interdisciplinarity in the sciences 1980–1999. Scientometrics, 58(1), 183–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromham, L., Dinnage, R., & Hua, X. (2016). Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature, 534(7609), 684–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brozek, J., & Keys, A. (1944). General aspects of interdisciplinary research in experimental biology. Science, 100, 507–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bu, Y., Ding, Y., Liang, X. K., & Murray, D. S. (2018). Understanding persistent scientific collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(3), 438–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buter, R. K., Noyons, E., & van Raan, A. (2010). Identification of converging research areas using publication and citation data. Research Evaluation, 19(1), 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Research Policy, 36(10), 1620–1634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feitosa, J., Grossman, R., & Salazar, M. (2018). Debunking key assumptions about teams: The role of culture. American Psychologist, 73(4), 376–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiore, S. M. (2008). Interdisciplinarity as teamwork—How the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Research, 39(3), 251–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi, S., Lockwood, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2015). The many faces of culture: Making sense of 30 years of research on culture in organization studies. The Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 1–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guns, R., Sīle, L., Eykens, J., Verleysen, F. T., & Engels, T. C. E. (2018). A comparison of cognitive and organizational classification of publications in the social sciences and humanities. Scientometrics, 116(2), 1093–1111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, K. L. (2017). What makes teams tick. Nature, 551(7682), 562–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, K. L., Stokols, D., Moser, R. P., Taylor, B. K., Thornquist, M. D., Nebeling, L. C., et al. (2008). The collaboration readiness of transdisciplinary research teams and centers. Findings from the National Cancer Institute’s TREC year-one evaluation study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S161–S172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, K. L., Vogel, A. L., Huang, G. C., Serrano, K. J., Rice, E. L., Tsakraklides, S. P., et al. (2018). The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. American Psychologist, 73(4), 532–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herz, N., Danc, O., Censor, N., & Bar-Haim, Y. (2020). Authors overestimate their contribution to scientific work, demonstrating a strong bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 117(12), 6282–6285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. F., Wuchty, S., & Uzzi, B. (2008). Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science, 322(5905), 1259–1262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A. (2014). By whom and when is women’s expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(2), 202–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, A., Choudhury, N., & Uddin, S. (2019). Few research fields play major role in interdisciplinary grant success. Scientometrics, 19(1), 237–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), S116–S122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y. X., Rousseau, R., & Wu, YS. (2019). Reflections on the Science of Team Science. Proceedings of ISSI 2019 (p. 1138–1145).

  • Liu, Y. X., & Tang, H. Y. (2019). Optimizing library’s organizational climate through improvement of the weak scales identified by ClimateQUAL™ surveys: A case study of Nanjing Agricultural University Library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(5), 102051.

    Google Scholar 

  • LucidChart (2020). Understanding the tiger team approach. https://www.lucidchart.com/blog/what-is-a-tiger-team. Last visited on 2020, April,16.

  • Martinez, W., Etchegaray, J. M., Thomas, E. J., & Bell, S. K. (2015). 'Speaking up' about patient safety concerns and unprofessional behaviour among residents: Validation of two scales. BMJ Quality & Safety, 24(11), 671–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molineux, M. (2017). A dictionary of occupational science and occupational therapy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gomez, A. (2001). An approach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 51(1), 203–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/19007. Introduced in Chinese by Wu Yishan in his blog: https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1557-887422.html.

  • Rennie, D., & Yank, V. (1998). If authors become contributors, everyone would gain, especially the reader. American Journal of Public Health, 88(5), 828–830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey-Rocha, J., Garzón-García, B., & Martín-Sempere, M. J. (2006). Scientists’ performance and consolidation of research teams in biology and biomedicine at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research. Scientometrics, 69(2), 183–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, R., Egghe, L., & Guns, R. (2018). Becoming metric-wise: A bibliometric guide for researchers. Kidlington: Chandos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, R., Zhang, L., & Hu, X. J. (2019). Knowledge integration: its meaning and management. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology indicators (pp. 69–94). Cham: Springer Nature.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S. (1997). Fermat’s Last Theorem. London: Fourth Estate.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., Taylor, B. K., & Moser, R. P. (2008). The Science of Team Science: Overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), S77–S89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, Y. (2018). 9 Diversity Dimensions That Increase Innovation, and One Reason They May Not. https://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2018/08/28/9-diversity-dimensions-that-increase-innovation-and-one-reason-they-may-not/. Translated in Chinese by Wu Yishan in his blog: http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=1557&do=blog&id=1132871.

  • Tse, H. H. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2008). A study of exchange and emotions in team member relationships. Group & Organization Management, 33(2), 194–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, H., Chen, R., Zheng, X., Zhang, Q., Cai, Z., & Liu, Y. X. (2018). Librarians’ diversity in the collaboration: A case study of Nanjing Agricultural University Library. Library and Information Service, 62(11), 64–71. (In Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., et al. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P., Lee, Y. N., & Tang, L. (2019). Pathogenic organization in science: Division of labor and retractions. Research Policy, 40(2), 444–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang LX. (2019a). Simply explanation on misleading of conclusion on the Nature article of team size. https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2999994-1167022.html.

  • Wang LX. (2019b). Analysis on the misleading of conclusion on the Nature article of team size. https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2999994-1162997.html.

  • Ward, W. S., & Given, L. M. (2019). Assessing intercultural communication: Testing technology tools for information sharing in multinational research teams. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(4), 338–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, L. F., Wang, D. S., & Evans, J. A. (2019). Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 566(7744), 378–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, S., & Wu, Q. (2019). A confusing definition of disruption. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/d3wpk/.

  • Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1038.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Liu Yuxian’s research for this paper was partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant 71173154.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tongji University Library, Tongji University, Siping Road 1239, Shanghai, 200092, China

    Yuxian Liu

  2. Institute of Higher Education, Tongji University, Siping Road 1239, Shanghai, 200092, China

    Yuxian Liu

  3. School of History and Archives, Yunnan University, Cuihubeilu 2, Kunming, 650091, China

    Yuxian Liu

  4. Chinese Academy of Science and Technology for Development, Yuyuantan Nanlu 8, Beijing, 100038, China

    Yishan Wu

  5. Faculty of Economics and Business, CEDON, KU Leuven, Warmoesberg 26, 1000, Brussel, Belgium

    Sandra Rousseau

  6. MSI and Facultair Onderzoekscentrum ECOOM, KU Leuven, Naamsestraat 61, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Ronald Rousseau

  7. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, Middelheimlaan 1, 2020, Antwerpen, Belgium

    Ronald Rousseau

Authors
  1. Yuxian Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yishan Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sandra Rousseau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ronald Rousseau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YL conceptualization; investigation; writing original draft; writing review and editing; supervision; funding acquisition; YW conceptualization; investigation; writing review and editing; SR investigation; writing review and editing; linguistic corrections; RR investigation; writing review and editing; submission of manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald Rousseau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, Y., Wu, Y., Rousseau, S. et al. Reflections on and a short review of the science of team science. Scientometrics 125, 937–950 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03513-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03513-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation