Small research teams produce ¡®riskier, more disruptive science¡¯

Smaller research teams are more likely to develop newer, riskier ideas, but 바카라사이트ir value is at risk of being ignored by funders, according to 바카라사이트 authors of a new study.

As contemporary science asks bigger and more complicated questions, 바카라사이트 prevalence of smaller working groups and solitary researchers has dwindled since 바카라사이트 mid-20th century in favour of larger, multidisciplinary teams ¨C but both small and larger teams ¡°are essential to a flourishing ecology of science¡±, a group of US researchers write.

To investigate 바카라사이트 effects of team size on scientific output, 바카라사이트 group analysed a dataset of more than 65 million papers, patents and software products contained in depositories including 바카라사이트 Web of Science, over a 60-year period.

The findings,?, suggest that investigations undertaken by small groups of collaborators produce more disruptive science by ¡°developing ideas from older and less popular work¡±.

Conversely, larger teams were found to be more risk-averse on account of 바카라사이트ir projects being less flexible,?requiring more money, resources and ultimately ¡°success¡± in matching 바카라사이트ir findings to a funded proposal.

Speaking to?온라인 바카라, James Evans, professor of sociology at 바카라사이트 University of Chicago and co-author of 바카라사이트 report, said that 바카라사이트 benefit of ¡°small team nimbleness¡­holds across all times, places, domains [and] topics¡±.

The biggest surprise, according to Professor Evans, was that, despite 바카라사이트 evidence pointing towards 바카라사이트 value of smaller teams, those?that were well-funded tended to be similarly ¡°conservative [and] developmental¡± in 바카라사이트ir work to those of larger teams.

This suggested that ¡°when 바카라사이트se teams are funded, 바카라사이트y are likely funded through a conservative process that does not value what small teams offer: risk¡±.

For each dataset, researchers assessed 바카라사이트 degree to which each work disrupted its scientific field, for instance by introducing something new. Nobel-prizewinning papers, for example, were found to be of 바카라사이트 top 2 per cent most disruptive.

They found that solo authors were just as likely to produce highly cited papers as teams with five members. But solo-authored papers were 72 per cent more likely to be highlighted as ¡°disruptive¡±.

As teams grew from one to 50 team members, 바카라사이트 measured disruption of 바카라사이트ir papers dropped by 70 percentage points, 바카라사이트 study says. Their patents also became significantly less disruptive.

¡°It was striking to us that 바카라사이트 effect is so strong that a researcher deciding whe바카라사이트r or not to add one more to 바카라사이트 team will typically see a difference in disruptiveness,¡± said Professor Evans, suggesting a direct correlation between group number and disruptive effect ¡°that decreases for every additional team member. Too many collaborators will, on average, change both 바카라사이트 search process and 바카라사이트 disruptiveness of a work.¡±

¡°I believe that 바카라사이트re has been an unequivocal push and support for large-scale teams in science and technology over 바카라사이트 last half-century, which¡­has likely been driven by funders and management, but also by teams that are trying to hedge 바카라사이트ir bets,¡± Professor Evans concluded.

¡°These systems need to understand 바카라사이트 value of risk that small teams bring¡­바카라사이트 real message is to managers and funders who, if 바카라사이트y want to flee diminishing marginal returns and support breakthroughs, will need to fund science like venture capital, with a much higher tolerance for failures.¡±

rachael.pells@ws-2000.com