Shirt a Phobia

Sample Page

Science of Team Science (SciTS) is a methodological field that focuses on understanding and improving cross-disciplinary collaboration in research. The field encompasses conceptual and methodological approaches for examining how teams of scientific researchers can be organised to work more effectively.[1] SciTS initiatives involve identifying and managing factors that influence collaborative research and evaluating its outcomes.[2][3][4]

History

Since the 1990s, interest and large-scale funding for team-based research initiatives have increased, driven by efforts to tackle complex problems through cross-disciplinary collaboration.[2][5][6][7] Some argue that this trend reflects the growing recognition that addressing multifaceted challenges, such as climate change and public health issues, benefits from partnerships among scientists and practitioners from diverse fields.[5][6][8] One SciTS literature review identified team science as an important component of interprofessional collaborative research.[9] The report, published by the University of Minnesota’s National Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education, called for the integration of team science into health professions education and clinical practice.

The development of SciTS was partly driven by concerns raised by funding agencies, which sought to assess the performance of team science, understand its added value, evaluate the return on investment in large research initiatives, and inform science policy.[2] The term ‘science of team science’ was formally introduced and popularized in October 2006 at a conference titled The Science of Team Science: Assessing the Value of Transdisciplinary Research, hosted by the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.[10] The SciTS field was further developed and discussed in a supplement to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine published in July 2008. The First Annual International Science of Team Science (SciTS) Conference was held on April 22–24, 2010, in Chicago, Illinois, organised by the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences (NUCATS) Institute.

In 2013, the National Academy of Sciences established a National Research Council Committee on the Science of Team Science to evaluate the current state of knowledge and practice in SciTS.[11] A committee report was published in 2015.[12]

In 2023, Patrick Forscher and colleagues published a review identifying the benefits of big team science, noting that innovations facilitate the collection of larger samples and support efforts toward reproducibility and generalisability.[13][14] However, concerns exist that team science could increasingly influence funding priorities, potentially shifting emphasis from applied science to more theoretical research areas, as well as leading to unsuccessful large-scale projects.[15] Forscher’s recommendations included creating an advisory board and structured by-laws, formalising feedback mechanisms from contributors, engaging in mentoring, and separating idea generation from project implementation.[14]

In 2026, the discourse shifted towards the management of Big Team Science (BTS). Vaidis and colleagues[16] synthesised work from global collaborations such as the Psychological Science Accelerator,[17] ManyBabies,[18] ManyManys[19] and ManyPrimates.[20] Although BTS can challenge statistical power and cross-cultural generalizability, several bureaucratic challenges arise requiring non-traditional management to function as a high-fidelity organisational structure from informal collaborative agreements, forward and backward translation and the value of Universal Time (UTC) for global synchronisation and decision-making protocols to maintain ethical and epistemological integrity in teams that exceed hundreds of members and labs to address the key questions in science.

Methods

The definition of a successful team may vary depending on stakeholders.[2] SciTS uses both qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate the antecedent conditions, collaborative processes, and outcomes associated with team science. It also considers the organizational, social, and political context that influences team science.[2]

A 2018 review of literature on SciTS published between 2006 and 2016 identified 109 articles. It reported that 75% of these articles used pre-existing data (e.g., archival data), 62% used bibliometrics, over 40% used surveys, and over 10% used interview and observational data.[21]

See also

References

  1. ^ “About INSciTS”. www.inscits.org. Archived from the original on May 17, 2022. Retrieved June 1, 2022.
  2. ^ a b c d e Stokols, Daniel; Hall, Kara L.; Taylor, Brandie K.; Moser, Richard P. (2008). “The Science of Team Science” (PDF). American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 35 (2): S77–S89. Bibcode:2008AmJPM..35S..77S. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.002. ISSN 0749-3797. PMID 18619407. S2CID 17612279. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 30, 2020. Retrieved November 28, 2013.
  3. ^ Stokols, Daniel; Misra, Shalini; Moser, Richard P.; Hall, Kara L.; Taylor, Brandie K. (2008). “The Ecology of Team Science” (PDF). American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 35 (2): S96–S115. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.003. ISSN 0749-3797. PMID 18619410. S2CID 7814454. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 30, 2020. Retrieved November 28, 2013.
  4. ^ “System”. Archived from the original on August 14, 2022. Retrieved January 22, 2023.
  5. ^ a b Wuchty S; Jones BF; Uzzi B (2007). “The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge”. Science. 316 (5827): 1036–9. Bibcode:2007Sci…316.1036W. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.118.2434. doi:10.1126/science.1136099. PMID 17431139. S2CID 3208041.
  6. ^ a b Jones BF; Wuchty S; Uzzi B (2008). “Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science”. Science. 322 (5905): 1259–62. Bibcode:2008Sci…322.1259J. doi:10.1126/science.1158357. PMID 18845711. S2CID 18809307.
  7. ^ Alessandroni, Nicolás; Altschul, Drew; Bazhydai, Marina; Byers-Heinlein, Krista; Elsherif, Mahmoud; Gjoneska, Biljana; Huber, Ludwig; Mazza, Valeria; Miller, Rachael; Nawroth, Christian; Pronizius, Ekaterina; Qadri, Muhammad A. J.; Šlipogor, Vedrana; Soderstrom, Melanie; Stevens, Jeffrey R. (2024). “Comparative Cognition Needs Big Team Science: How Large-Scale Collaborations Will Unlock the Future of the Field”. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews. 19: 67–72. doi:10.3819/CCBR.2024.190001.
  8. ^ Vlasceanu, Madalina; Doell, Kimberly C.; Bak-Coleman, Joseph B.; Todorova, Boryana; Berkebile-Weinberg, Michael M.; Grayson, Samantha J.; Patel, Yash; Goldwert, Danielle; Pei, Yifei; Chakroff, Alek; Pronizius, Ekaterina; van den Broek, Karlijn L.; Vlasceanu, Denisa; Constantino, Sara; Morais, Michael J. (February 9, 2024). “Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries”. Science Advances. 10 (6) eadj5778. Bibcode:2024SciA…10J5778V. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adj5778. ISSN 2375-2548. PMC 10849597. PMID 38324680.
  9. ^ Little, Meg M.; St Hill, Catherine A.; Ware, Kenric B.; Swanoski, Michael T.; Chapman, Scott A.; Lutfiyya, M. Nawal; Cerra, Frank B. (2017). “Team science as interprofessional collaborative research practice: A systematic review of the science of team science literature”. Journal of Investigative Medicine. 65 (1): 15–22. doi:10.1136/jim-2016-000216. ISSN 1081-5589. PMC 5284346. PMID 27619555.
  10. ^ “Science of Team Science”. Archived from the original on May 27, 2010.
  11. ^ “The Science of Team Science”. National Academies Web Server sites.nationalacademies.org. January 11, 2013. Archived from the original on September 10, 2019. Retrieved May 9, 2018.
  12. ^ Committee on the Science of Team Science; Board On Behavioral, Cognitive; Division of Behavioral Social Sciences Education; National Research, Council; Cooke, N. J.; Hilton, M. L. (July 15, 2015). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Bibcode:2015nap..book19007N. doi:10.17226/19007. ISBN 978-0-309-31682-8. PMID 26247083.
  13. ^ Köhler, Tine; Cortina, Jose M. (February 2021). “Play It Again, Sam! An Analysis of Constructive Replication in the Organizational Sciences”. Journal of Management. 47 (2): 488–518. doi:10.1177/0149206319843985. hdl:11343/227060. ISSN 0149-2063.
  14. ^ a b Forscher, Patrick S.; Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan; Coles, Nicholas A.; Silan, Miguel Alejandro; Dutra, Natália; Basnight-Brown, Dana; IJzerman, Hans (May 2023). “The Benefits, Barriers, and Risks of Big-Team Science”. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 18 (3): 607–623. doi:10.1177/17456916221082970. ISSN 1745-6916. PMID 36190899.
  15. ^ Kreamer, Liana M.; Cobb, Haley R.; Castille, Christopher; Cogswell, Joshua (February 1, 2024). “Big team science initiatives: A catalyst for trustworthy advancements in IO psychology”. Acta Psychologica. 242 104101. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.104101. ISSN 0001-6918. PMID 38064907.
  16. ^ Vaidis, David C.; Miranda, Jacob F.; Buchanan, Erin M.; Yang, Yu Fang; Kowal, Marta; Schmidt, Kathleen; Topor, Marta; Misiak, Michal; Miller, Rachael; Protzko, John; Gjoneska, Biljana; Miller, Jeremy K.; Exner, Anna; Azevedo, Flavio; Paruzel-Czachura, Mariola (April 29, 2026). “The Advantage of Big Team Science: Lessons Learned From Cognitive Science”. Collabra: Psychology. 12 (1). doi:10.1525/collabra.160129. ISSN 2474-7394.
  17. ^ Moshontz, Hannah; Campbell, Lorne; Ebersole, Charles R.; IJzerman, Hans; Urry, Heather L.; Forscher, Patrick S.; Grahe, Jon E.; McCarthy, Randy J.; Musser, Erica D.; Antfolk, Jan; Castille, Christopher M.; Evans, Thomas Rhys; Fiedler, Susann; Flake, Jessica Kay; Forero, Diego A. (December 2018). “The Psychological Science Accelerator: Advancing Psychology Through a Distributed Collaborative Network”. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 1 (4): 501–515. doi:10.1177/2515245918797607. ISSN 2515-2459. PMC 6934079. PMID 31886452.
  18. ^ Byers-Heinlein, Krista; Bergmann, Christina; Davies, Catherine; Frank, Michael C.; Hamlin, J. Kiley; Kline, Melissa; Kominsky, Jonathan F.; Kosie, Jessica E.; Lew-Williams, Casey; Liu, Liquan; Mastroberardino, Meghan; Singh, Leher; Waddell, Connor P. G.; Zettersten, Martin; Soderstrom, Melanie (November 2020). “Building a collaborative psychological science: Lessons learned from ManyBabies 1”. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne. 61 (4): 349–363. doi:10.1037/cap0000216. ISSN 1878-7304. PMC 8244655. PMID 34219905.
  19. ^ Alessandroni, Nicolás; Altschul, Drew; Baumgartner, Heidi A.; Bazhydai, Marina; Brosnan, Sarah F.; Byers-Heinlein, Krista; Call, Josep; Chittka, Lars; Elsherif, Mahmoud; Espinosa, Julia; Freeman, Marianne S.; Gjoneska, Biljana; Güntürkün, Onur; Huber, Ludwig; Krasheninnikova, Anastasia (February 2025). “Challenges and promises of big team comparative cognition”. Nature Human Behaviour. 9 (2): 240–242. doi:10.1038/s41562-024-02081-6. ISSN 2397-3374. PMID 39695249.
  20. ^ Primates, Many; Altschul, Drew M.; Beran, Michael J.; Bohn, Manuel; Call, Josep; DeTroy, Sarah; Duguid, Shona J.; Egelkamp, Crystal L.; Fichtel, Claudia; Fischer, Julia; Flessert, Molly; Hanus, Daniel; Haun, Daniel B. M.; Haux, Lou M.; Hernandez-Aguilar, R. Adriana (October 24, 2019). “Establishing an infrastructure for collaboration in primate cognition research”. PLOS ONE. 14 (10) e0223675. Bibcode:2019PLoSO..1423675A. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0223675. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 6812783. PMID 31648222.
  21. ^ Love, Hannah B.; Fosdick, Bailey K.; Cross, Jennifer E.; Suter, Meghan; Egan, Dinaida; Tofany, Elizabeth; Fisher, Ellen R. (October 14, 2022). “Towards understanding the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful collaborations: a case-based team science study”. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 9 (1) 371: 1–11. doi:10.1057/s41599-022-01388-x. ISSN 2662-9992.

Further reading