Collaboration and productivity in scientific synthesis

BioScience

Volumn 61, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 900-910

  Hampton, Stephanie E ^a   Parker, John N ^b  

^a NATIONAL CENTER FOR ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

interdisciplinary science; research productivity and impact; scientific metrics; sociology of collaboration; synthetic science

Indexed keywords

EID: 81355142735     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.11.9     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. [AC-ERE] US National Science Foundation Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education. 2003. Complex Environmental Systems: Synthesis for Earth, Life, and Society in the 21st Century. US National Science Foundation.
2. [AC-ERE] US National Science Foundation Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education. 2009. Transitions and Tipping Points in Complex Environmental Systems. US National Science Foundation.
3. Babu AR, Singh YP. 1998. Determinants of research productivity. Sciento-metrics 43: 309-329. (Pubitemid 128456855)
4. Bechtel W. 1993. Integrating disciplines by creating new disciplines: The case of cell biology. Biology and Philosophy 8: 277-299.
5. Bell G, Hey T, Szalay A. 2009. Computer science: Beyond the data deluge. Science 323: 1297-1298.
6. Brown J, Carpenter S. 1993. National Center for Ecological Synthesis: Scientific Objectives, Structure, and Implementation. Report from a Joint Committee of the Ecological Society of America and the Association of Ecosystem Research Centers; 8 February 1993, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
7. Carlson S. 2006. Lost in a sea of science data. Chronicle of Higher Education 52: A35.
8. Carpenter SR, et al. 2009a. Accelerate synthesis in ecology and environmental sciences. BioScience 59: 699-701.
9. Carpenter SR, et al. 2009b. The Future of Synthesis in Ecology and Environmental Sciences. National Science Foundation.
10. Collins HM. 2001. Tacit knowledge, trust, and the Q of sapphire. Social Studies of Science 31: 71-85.
11. Collins R. 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Harvard University Press.
12. Corley EA, Boardman PC, Bozeman B. 2006. Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies. Research Policy 35: 975-993.
13. Cummings JN, Kiesler S. 2005. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science 35: 703-722. (Pubitemid 41495324)
14. -. 2007. Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Research Policy 36: 1620-1634. (Pubitemid 350101739)
15. -2008. Who collaborates successfully?: Prior experience reduces collaboration barriers in distributed interdisciplinary research. Pages 437-446 in Begole B, McDonald DW. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work. ACM.
16. Cummings J[N], Finholt T, Foster I, Kesselman C. 2008. Beyond Being There: A Blueprint for Advancing the Design, Development, and Evaluation of Virtual Organizations. National Science Foundation.
17. Farrell M P. 2001. Collaborative Circles: Friendship Dynamics and Creative Work. University of Chicago Press.
18. Fava GA, Ottolini F. 2004. International trends in psychiatric research. A citation analysis. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 17: 283-287.
19. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage.
20. Hackett EJ. 2005. Essential tensions: identity, control, and risk in research. Social Studies of Science 35: 787-826. (Pubitemid 41495327)
21. Hackett EJ, Parker JN. 2011. Leadership of scientific groups. In Sims Bainbridge W, ed. Leadership in Science and Technology: A Reference Handbook. Sage. Forthcoming.
22. Hackett E[J], Parker J[N], Conz D, Rhoten D, Parker A. 2008. Ecology Transformed: The National Center for Ecological Analysis and Syn-thesis and the Changing Patterns of Ecological Research. Pages 277-296 in Olson GM, Zimmerman A, Bos N. Scientific Collaboration on the Internet. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
23. Hare A P, Bales RF. 1963. Seating position and small group interaction. Sociometry 26: 480-486.
24. Hinds P, Kiesler S. 2002. Distributed Work. MIT Press.
25. Janis IL. 1972. Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.
26. Kim S-H. 2005. Explaining scientific productivity variation. Pages 1032-1035 in EDS. KORUS 2005: Proceedings of the 9th Russian-Korean International Symposium on Science and Technology. KORUS.
27. Kostoff RN. 2002. Overcoming specialization. BioScience 52: 937-941. (Pubitemid 35181483)
28. Landry R, Traore N, Godin B. 1996. An econometric analysis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity. Higher Education 32: 283-301.
29. Lawrence PA. 2002. Rank injustice. Nature 415: 835-836. (Pubitemid 34174728)
30. Leahey E. 2007. Not by productivity alone: How visibility and specialization contribute to academic earnings. American Sociological Review 72: 533-561. (Pubitemid 47288903)
31. Lee S, Bozeman B. 2005. The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science 35: 673-702. (Pubitemid 41495323)
32. Lokker C, McKibbon KA, McKinlay RJ, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. 2008. Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: Retrospective cohort study. British Medical Journal 336: 655-659.
33. Long JS. 1992. Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity. Social Forces 71: 159-178.
34. Lotka AJ. 1926. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 16: 317-324.
35. MacMynowski DP. 2007. Pausing at the brink of interdisciplinarity: Power and knowledge at the meeting of social and biophysical science. Ecology and Society 12: 20.
36. Mullins NC. 1972. The development of a scientific specialty: phage group and the origins of molecular biology. Minerva 10: 51-82.
37. Neter J, Kutner MH, Wasserman W, Nachtsheim CJ. 1996. Applied Linear Regression Models. McGraw-Hill.
38. Nohria N, Eccles RG. 1992. Face to face: Making network organizations work. Pages 288-308 in Nohria N, Eccles RG, eds. Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action. Harvard Business School Press.
39. Noori S, Hosseini SH, Baksha A. 2009. Human performance factors in the evaluation of virtual organizations. International Journal of Business Management 4: 41-49.
40. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M. 2001. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Polity.
41. Olson GM, Olson, JS. 2000. Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction 15: 139-178. (Pubitemid 32251322)
42. Olson GM, Zimmerman A, Bos N, eds. 2008. Scientific Collaboration on the Internet. MIT Press.
43. Osborne JW, Holland A. 2009. What is authorship, and what should it be? A survey of prominent guidelines for determining authorship in scientific publications. Practical Assessment Research Evaluation 14: 1-19.
44. Parker JN. 2006. Organizational Collaborations and Scientific Integration: The Case of Ecology and the Social Sciences. PhD Dissertation. Arizona State University, Tempe.
45. Parker JN. 2010. Integrating the social into the ecological: Organizational and research group challenges. Pages 85-110 in Parker JN, Vermeulen N, Penders B, eds. Collaboration in the New Life Sciences. Ashgate.
46. Parker JN, Vermeulen N, Penders B, eds. 2010. Collaboration in the New Life Sciences. Ashgate.
47. Patra SK, Mishra S. 2006. Bibliometric study of bioinformatics literature. Scientometrics 67: 477-489.
48. Pickett STA, Kolasa J, Jones CG. 2007. Ecological Understanding: The Nature of Theory and the Theory of Nature, 2nd ed. Academic Press.
49. Polanyi M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. University of Chicago Press.
50. Price DJDS. 1963. Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press.
51. Rhoten D. 2003. A Multi-method Analysis of Social and Technical Conditions for Interdisciplinary Collaboration. National Science Foundation. Report no. BCS-0129573.
52. ScienceWatch. 2009. Climate Change. (15 August 2011; http://sciencewatch. com/ana/st/climate)
53. Shrum W, Chompalov I, Genuth J. 2001. Trust, conflict and performance in scientific collaborations. Social Studies of Science 31: 681-730.
54. Shrum W, Genuth J, Chompalov I. 2007. Structures of Scientific Collaboration. MIT Press.
55. Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN, Rook DW. 2007. Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Sage.
56. Von Tunzelmann N, Ranga M, Martin B, Geuna A. 2003. The Effects of Size on Research Performance: A SPRU Review. University of Sussex at Brighton.
57. Wilson EO. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Random House.
58. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316: 1036-1039. (Pubitemid 46804914)