Multinational teams and diseconomies of scale in collaborative research

Collaborative research has become the mainstay in knowledge production across many domains of science and is widely promoted as a means of cultivating research quality, enhanced resource utilization, and high impact. An accurate appraisal of the value of collaborative research efforts is necessary to inform current funding and research policies. We reveal contemporary trends in collaborative research spanning multiple subject fields, with a particular focus on interactions between nations. We also examined citation outcomes of research teams and confirmed the accumulative benefits of having additional authors and unique countries involved. However, when per capita citation rates were analyzed to disambiguate the effects of authors and countries, decreasing returns in citations were noted with increasing authors among large research teams. In contrast, an increasing number of unique countries had a persistent additive citation effect. We also assessed the placement of foreign authors relative to the first author in paper bylines of biomedical research articles, which demonstrated a significant citation advantage of having an international presence in the second-to-last author position, possibly occupied by foreign primary co-investigators. Our analyses highlight the evolution and functional impact of team dynamics in research and suggest empirical strategies to evaluate team science.

Download Full-text

Emerging Models of Collaboration in Political Science: Changes, Benefits, and Challenges

Political Science and Politics ◽

10.1017/s1049096510990811 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 43 (01) ◽

pp. 49-58 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Rose McDermott ◽

Peter K. Hatemi

Keyword(s):

Social Sciences ◽

Political Science ◽

Collaborative Research ◽

Interdisciplinary Collaboration ◽

American Political Science Association ◽

Research Teams ◽

The Face ◽

American Political Science ◽

Science Association ◽

Large Research

In increasing numbers, political scientists are engaging in collaborative research. It is useful to consider the advantages of such efforts and to suggest strategies for finding optimal collaborators. In addition, there are issues and challenges that arise in the face of increased collaboration, particularly interdisciplinary collaboration across the life and social sciences. Inevitably, as the discipline has moved from a dominant solo-author model to a wider array of authorship possibilities, whether those teams encompass two-person partnerships, large research teams, or something in between, new administrative and cultural questions have already begun to surface as the discipline works to assimilate these changes. Consonant with previous efforts by the American Political Science Association (Biggs 2008; Chandra et al. 2006), we seek here to continue a broader disciplinary conversation surrounding the opportunities and challenges posed by more diverse patterns of teamwork. In so doing, we hope to help continue to encourage transparent, predictable, and openly collaborative intellectual partnerships wherein individuals receive the institutional credit and merit they deserve.

Download Full-text

Authorship inequality: a bibliometric study of the concentration of authorship among a diminishing number of individuals in high-impact medical journals, 2008–2019

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046002 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

pp. e046002

Author(s):

Kamber L Hart ◽

Roy H Perlis

Keyword(s):

Research Funding ◽

High Impact ◽

High Impact Journal ◽

Medical Journals ◽

Medical Specialties ◽

Academic Medical ◽

Rate Of Increase ◽

Number Of Publications ◽

Author Position ◽

Number Of Individuals

ObjectiveAuthorship and number of publications are important criteria used for making decisions about promotions and research funding awards. Given the increase in the number of author positions over the last few decades, this study sought to determine if there had been a shift in the distribution of authorship among those publishing in high-impact academic medical journals over the last 12 years.DesignThis study analysed the distribution of authorship across 312 222 original articles published in 134 medium-impact to high-impact academic medical journals between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2019. Additionally, this study compared the trends in author distributions across nine medical specialties and a collection of cross-specialty high-impact journal articles.Primary outcome measuresThe distribution of authorship was assessed using the Gini coefficient (GC), a widely used measure of economic inequality.ResultsThe overall GC for all articles sampled across the 12-year study period was 0.49, and the GCs for the first and last authorship positions were 0.30 and 0.44, respectively. Since 2008, there was a significant positive correlation between year and GC for the overall authorship position (r=0.99, p<0.001) the first author position (r=0.75, p=0.007) and the last author position (r=0.85, p<0.001) indicating increasingly uneven distribution in authorship over time. The cross-specialty high-impact journals exhibited the greatest rate of increase in GC over the study period for the first and last author position of any specialty analysed.ConclusionOverall, these data suggest a growing inequality in authorship across authors publishing in high-impact academic medical journals, especially among the highest impact journals. These findings may have implications for processes such as promotions and allocation of research funding that use authorship metrics as key criteria for making decisions.

Download Full-text

Conceptual Models for Implementing Solution-Oriented Team Science in Large Research Consortia

Journal of Clinical and Translational Science ◽

10.1017/cts.2021.802 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-22

Author(s):

Leslie C. Thompson ◽

Kara L. Hall ◽

Amanda L. Vogel ◽

Christina H. Park ◽

Matthew W. Gillman

Keyword(s):

Conceptual Models ◽

Team Science ◽

Large Research

Download Full-text

COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH, DELIBERATION, AND INNOVATION

Episteme ◽

10.1017/epi.2014.9 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

pp. 291-303 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

K. Brad Wray

Keyword(s):

Problem Solving ◽

Collaborative Research ◽

Research Team ◽

Team Work ◽

Research Teams ◽

Course Of Action ◽

Wrong Direction ◽

Group Members ◽

Alternative Solutions

AbstractI evaluate the extent to which we could learn something about how we should be conducting collaborative research in science from the research on groupthink. I argue that Solomon has set us in the wrong direction, failing to recognize that the consensus in scientific specialties is not the result of deliberation. But the attention to the structure of problem-solving that has emerged in the groupthink research conducted by psychologists can help us see when deliberation could lead to problems for a research team. I argue that whenever we need to generate alternative solutions or proposals, groupthink is a genuine threat, and research teams would be wise to allow individuals opportunities to work alone. But the benefits of team work emerge when scientists seek to evaluate the various proposals generated, and determine a course of action. Then the group is less prone is groupthink, and the interaction of group members can be an epistemic asset.

Download Full-text

An endnote: Advice and recommendations from University of Waikato education professionals, for teachers as researchers

Teachers and Curriculum ◽

10.15663/tandc.v19i1.337 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

pp. 67-70

Author(s):

Kerry Earl Rinehart ◽

Judith Mills

Keyword(s):

Educational Research ◽

Collaborative Research ◽

Research Teams ◽

Education Professionals ◽

University Teachers ◽

Journal Editors ◽

The University ◽

Relational Contexts

We conclude this issue with some advice for teachers as researchers from members of the Division of Education staff at the University of Waikato along with some recommendations for helpful reference books. The emphasis of this article, in the words of four of the staff, is one of the support available to assist education researchers. Educational research is not conducted in solitary but by researchers within a variety of relational contexts. Therefore, University teachers and class peers, supervisors, members of collaborative research teams and journal editors can all provide support in a teacher- researcher’s research journey.

Download Full-text

Adjunct Faculty Perceptions of Participation in Online Collaborative Research Teams

Higher Learning Research Communications ◽

10.18870/hlrc.v9i2.459 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (2) ◽

Author(s):

Rita Hartman ◽

Danielle Kearns-Sixsmith ◽

Patricia Akojie ◽

Christa Banton

Keyword(s):

Adjunct Faculty ◽

Personal Growth ◽

Professional Growth ◽

Collaborative Research ◽

Faculty Perceptions ◽

Research Question ◽

Research Teams ◽

Organizational Skills ◽

Part Time Faculty ◽

Inquiry Approach

Career professionals who serve as adjunct faculty at the university level are expected to engage in continual research and publishing to maintain their status as adjunct (part-time) faculty, to be considered for potential advancement, and to qualify for additional compensation. One way of meeting this objective is to participate in online collaborative research projects benefiting from a set of multiple lenses, multiple insights, and a multitude of considerations in regard to design, methodology, data interpretations, and broader reaching implications. A narrative inquiry approach was applied to gain an in-depth understanding of the experiences of adjunct faculty working in online collaborative research teams. Data was gathered through phone interviews where adjunct faculty shared their personal experiences and reflections about working as collaborative researchers in an online environment. Using an inductive process, themes were drawn from the responses of the participants to address the research question. The dominant themes found were organizational skills, interpersonal skills, and personal growth and development. The results of the study led to recommendations for supporting adjunct faculty in online collaborative research for building a sense of scholarly community and expanding opportunities for personal professional growth.

Download Full-text

Collaborative Research: Techniques for Conducting Collaborative Research From the Science of Team Science (SciTS)

Advances in Developing Human Resources ◽

10.1177/1523422319886300 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

pp. 72-86 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

John R. Turner ◽

Rose Baker

Keyword(s):

Graduate Students ◽

Human Resource Development ◽

Collaborative Research ◽

Team Science ◽

Collaborative Environments ◽

Research And Practice ◽

Promotion And Tenure ◽

Science Of Team Science ◽

Collaborative Efforts ◽

Improved Methods

The Problem The field of human resource development (HRD) is a multidisciplinary field of research and practice requiring collaboration. Unfortunately, the literature on how to conduct collaborative research is incomplete within HRD and other disciplines. Any breakdown in the communication, exchange of ideas, agreed-upon methodologies, or shared credit for dissemination has the potential of preventing research from moving forward. Promotion and tenure policies also hamper collaborative efforts in that these policies often reward individual initiative as opposed to collaborative outcomes. These behavioral patterns provide constraints to the improvement and betterment of efforts to changing of the guard. The Solution This article highlights new and improved methods for working in collaborative environments. During an academic’s transition and professional development, these methods will help emerging scholars, new to collaborative research, when facing the team science revolution. The Stakeholders Scholars and scholar-practitioners engaged in collaborative research. Emerging scholars who are beginning their journey into collaborative research. Graduate students preparing for a career in academia.

Download Full-text

Oil will challenge fragile institutions in Guyana

Emerald Expert Briefings ◽

10.1108/oxan-db249644 ◽

2019 ◽

Keyword(s):

Government Spending ◽

Resource Curse ◽

High Impact ◽

Balance Of Payments ◽

Dutch Disease ◽

Gdp Per Capita ◽

Content Type ◽

Impact Risk ◽

Per Capita ◽

The Government

Significance Guyana, hitherto a non-oil producing state, will produce growing volumes of crude oil. This will bring a range of consequences, potentially both positive and negative. It will see Guyana's GDP per capita soar, its balance of payments improve and the government’s income grow. However, it will also face so-called ‘resource curse’ risks, including economic distortions, corruption, wasteful government spending, ’Dutch disease’ and potentially even geopolitical complications. Impacts The government will struggle to manage expectations and use an unprecedented inflow of revenues to best advantage. Guyana’s new-found wealth could inflame tensions with neighbouring Venezuela, which claims much of its territory. There is a low but potentially high-impact risk that serious confrontation with Venezuela could bring in other players.

Download Full-text