Teamwork is one of the most prominent features in modern science. It is now well understood that team size is an important factor that affects the creativity of the team. However, the crucial question of how the character of research studies is related to the freshness of a team remains unclear. Here, we quantify the team freshness according to the absence of prior collaboration among team members. Our results suggest that papers produced by fresher teams are associated with greater originality and a greater multidisciplinary impact. These effects are even stronger in larger teams. Furthermore, we find that freshness defined by new team members in a paper is a more effective indicator of research originality and multidisciplinarity compared with freshness defined by new collaboration relationships among team members. Finally, we show that the career freshness of team members is also positively correlated with the originality and multidisciplinarity of produced papers.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
The APS data can be downloaded at https://journals.aps.org/datasets. The computer science data can be downloaded at https://www.aminer.cn/aminernetwork. The multidisciplinary data were download from https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/academic-services/graph. Other related, relevant data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Computational codes for data processing and analysis are available from the corresponding author on request.
Fortunato, S. et al. Science of science. Science 359, eaao0185 (2018).
Zeng, A. et al. The science of science: from the perspective of complex systems. Phys. Rep. 714-715, 1–73 (2017).
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F. & Uzzi, B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316, 1036–1039 (2007).
Guimera, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro, J. & Amaral, L. Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 308, 697–702 (2005).
Leahey, E. et al. From sole investigator to team scientist: trends in the practice and study of research collaboration. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 42, 81–100 (2016).
Milojevic, S. Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3984–3989 (2014).
Hunter, L. & Leahey, E. Collaborative research in sociology: trends and contributing factors. Am. Sociol. 39, 290–306 (2008).
Xie, Y. ‘Undemocracy’: inequalities in science. Science 344, 809–810 (2014).
Falk-Krzesinski, H. J. et al. Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science. Res. Eval. 20, 145–158 (2011).
Barabasi, A. et al. Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Phys. A 311, 590–614 (2002).
Newman, M. E. J. The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 404–409 (2001).
Petersen, A. M. Quantifying the impact of weak, strong, and super ties in scientific careers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E4671–E4680 (2015).
Li, M. et al. Evolving model of weighted networks inspired by scientific collaboration networks. Phys. A 375, 355–364 (2007).
Borner, K., Maru, J. T. & Goldstone, R. L. The simultaneous evolution of author and paper networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 5266–5273 (2004).
Redner, S. How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution. Eur. Phys. J. B 4, 131–134 (1998).
Klug, M. & Bagrow, J. P. Understanding the group dynamics and success of teams. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160007 (2016).
Hsiehchen, D., Espinoza, M. & Hsieh, A. Multinational teams and diseconomies of scale in collaborative research. Sci. Adv. 1, e1500211 (2015).
Wu, L., Wang, D. & Evans, J. A. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature 566, 378–382 (2019).
Coccia, M. & Wang, L. Evolution and convergence of the patterns of international scientific collaboration. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 2057–2061 (2016).
Jones, B. F., Wuchty, S. & Uzzi, B. Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science 322, 1259–1262 (2008).
Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R. & Didegah, F. Mapping world scientific collaboration: authors, institutions, and countries. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63, 323–335 (2012).
Van Noorden, R. et al. Interdisciplinary research by the numbers. Nature 525, 306–307 (2015).
Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M. & Jones, B. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342, 468–472 (2013).
Stephan, P. E. & Levin, S. G. Age and the Nobel Prize revisited. Scientometrics 28, 387–399 (1993).
Jones, B. F. & Weinberg, B. A. Age dynamics in scientific creativity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 18910–18914 (2011).
Jones, B. F., Reedy, E. J. & Weinberg, B. A. Age and Scientific Genius (Wiley-Blackwell, 2014).
Sinatra, R., Wang, D., Deville, P., Song, C. & Barabasi, A.-L. Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science 354, aaf5239 (2016).
Funk, R. J. & Owen-Smith, J. A dynamic network measure of technological change. Manag. Sci. 63, 791–817 (2017).
Sinatra, R., Deville, P., Szell, M., Wang, D. & Barabasi, A.-L. A century of physics. Nat. Phys. 11, 791–796 (2015).
Zhou, T., Lu, L. & Zhang, Y.-C. Predicting missing links via local information. Eur. Phys. J. B 71, 623–630 (2009).
Petersen, A. M. et al. Reputation and impact in academic careers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 15316–15321 (2014).
Zeng, A. et al. Increasing trend of scientists to switch between topics. Nat. Commun. 10, 3439 (2019).
Jia, T., Wang, D. & Szymanski, B. K. Quantifying patterns of research-interest evolution. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0078 (2017).
Tang, J. et al. ArnetMiner: extraction and mining of academic social networks. In Proc. Fourteenth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (SIGKDD’2008) (eds Li, Y., Liu, B. & Sarawagi, S.) 990–998 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2008).
Sinha, A. et al. An overview of Microsoft Academic Service (MA) and applications. In Proc. 24th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW ’15 Companion) (eds Gangemi, A., Leonardi, S. & Panconesi, A.) 243–246 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2015).
Stirling, A. A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. J. R. Soc. Interface 4, 707–719 (2007).
Porter, A. & Rafols, I. Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics 81, 719–745 (2009).
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant (71843005 and 71731002). S.H. thanks the Israel Science Foundation and the NSF-BSF for financial support. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature Human Behaviour thanks Filipi Nascimento Silva and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Zeng, A., Fan, Y., Di, Z. et al. Fresh teams are associated with original and multidisciplinary research. Nat Hum Behav (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01084-x