Scientific teams: Self-assembly, fluidness, and interdependence

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 197-207

  Wang, Jian ^a,b   Hicks, Diana ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance (iFQ)   (Germany)

^c GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Organization of science; Research collaboration; Social networks; Team science

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER APPLICATIONS; SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

COLLABORATIVE TEAMS; FIXED EFFECTS; KNOWLEDGE SPILLOVERS; OPEN NETWORK; POISSON MODEL; PUBLICATION HISTORY; RESEARCH COLLABORATIONS; TEAM SCIENCE;

SELF ASSEMBLY;

EID: 84921381589     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.12.006     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Aime F., Humphrey S., Derue D.S., Paul J.P. The riddle of heterarchy: Power transitions in cross-functional teams. Academy of Management Journal 2014, 57:327-352.
2. Allison P.D., Waterman R.P. Fixed-effects negative binomial regression models. Sociological Methodology 2002, 32:247-265.
3. Amabile T.M. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1983, 45:357-376.
4. Ancona D.G. Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal 1990, 33:334-365.
5. Ancona D.G., Caldwell D.F. Beyond task and maintenance: Defining external functions in groups. Group & Organization Studies 1988, 13:468-494.
6. Ancona D.G., Caldwell D.F. Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 1992, 37:634-665.
7. Bagozzi R.P., Dholakia U.M. Open source software user communities: A study of participation in Linux user groups. Management Science 2006, 52:1099-1115.
8. Bornmann L., Daniel H.D. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation 2008, 64:45-80.
9. Cameron A.C., Trivedi P.K. Regression analysis of count data 2013, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York, NY.
10. Chompalov I., Genuth J., Shrum W. The organization of scientific collaborations. Research Policy 2002, 31:749-767.
11. Cohen S.G., Bailey D.E. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management 1997, 23:239-290.
12. Cole S. Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology 1979, 84:958-977.
13. Contractor N.S. Some assembly required: Leveraging Web science to understand and enable team assembly. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 2013, 371:1-14.
14. Cummings J.N., Kiesler S. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science 2005, 35:703-722.
15. Cummings J.N., Kiesler S., Zadeh R.B., Balakrishnan A.D. Group heterogeneity increases the risks of large group size: A longitudinal study of productivity in research groups. Psychological Science 2013, 24:880-890.
16. de Solla Price D.J. Little science: Big science... and beyond 1986, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
17. DeChurch L.A., Marks M.A. Leadership in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology 2006, 91:311-329.
18. Denison D.R., Hart S.L., Kahn J.A. From chimneys to cross-functional teams: Developing and validating a diagnostic model. Academy of Management Journal 1996, 39:1005-1023.
19. Falk-Krzesinski H.J., Börner K., Contractor N., Fiore S.M., Hall K.L., Keyton J., et al. Advancing the science of team science. Clinical and Translational Science 2010, 3:263-266.
20. Fiore S.M. Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: How the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Research 2008, 39:251-277.
21. Ford C.M. Theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review 1996, 21:1112-1142.
22. Gilbert G.N. Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science 1977, 7:113-122.
23. Gino F., Argote L., Miron-Spektor E., Todorova G. First, get your feet wet: The effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2010, 111:102-115.
24. Glänzel W., Schlemmer B., Thijs B. Better late than never? On the chance to become highly cited only beyond the standard bibliometric time horizon. Scientometrics 2003, 58:571-586.
25. Glänzel W., Thijs B., Schlemmer B. A bibliometric approach to the role of author self-citations in scientific communication. Scientometrics 2004, 59:63-77.
26. Gourieroux C., Monfort A., Trognon A. Pseudo maximum likelihood methods: Applications to Poisson models. Econometrica 1984, 52:701-720.
27. Greene W. Functional form and heterogeneity in models for count data. Foundations and Trends in Econometrics 2005, 1:113-218.
28. Guimarães P. The fixed effects negative binomial model revisited. Economics Letters 2008, 99:63-66.
29. Guimera R., Uzzi B., Spiro J., Nunes Amaral L.A. Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 2005, 308:697-702.
30. Gupta A.K., Smith K.G., Shalley C.E. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal 2006, 49:693-706.
31. Guzzo R.A., Dickson M.W. Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology 1996, 47:307-338.
32. Hackman I.R., Morris C.G. Group tasks, group interaction processes, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. Advances in experimental social psychology 1975, 47-99. Academic Press, New York, NY. L. Berkowitz (Ed.).
33. Haeussler C., Sauermann H. Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship. Research Policy 2013, 42:688-703.
34. Hall B.H., Ziedonis R.H. The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979-1995. Rand Journal of Economics 2001, 32:101-128.
35. Hausman J., Hall B.H., Griliches Z. Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents R&D relationship. Econometrica 1984, 52:909-938.
36. Hemlin S., Allwood C.M., Martin B.R., Mumford M.D. Creativity and leadership in science, technology, and innovation 2013, Routledge, New York, NY.
37. Hertel G., Niedner S., Herrmann S. Motivation of software developers in Open Source projects: An Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Research Policy 2003, 32:1159-1177.
38. Hertel G., Geister S., Konradt U. Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review 2005, 15:69-95.
39. Hicks D., Katz J.S. Where is science going?. Science, Technology & Human Values 1996, 21:379-406.
40. Hottenrott H., Lopes-Bento C. Quantity or quality? Knowledge alliances and their effects on patenting. Industrial and Corporate Change 2014, (in press).
41. Hulsheger U.R., Anderson N., Salgado J.F. Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology 2009, 94:1128-1145.
42. Katz J.S., Martin B.R. What is research collaboration?. Research Policy 1997, 26:1-18.
43. Keller R.T. Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: Diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal 2001, 44:547-555.
44. Laudel G. What do we measure by co-authorships?. Research Evaluation 2002, 11:3-15.
45. Lee S., Bozeman B. The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science 2005, 35:673-702.
46. Lee Y.-N., Walsh J.P., Wang J. Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact. Research Policy 2014, (in press).
47. Levine J.M., Moreland R.L. Progress in small-group research. Annual Review of Psychology 1990, 41:585-634.
48. Levine J.M., Moreland R.L. Collaboration: The social context of theory development. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2004, 8:164-172.
49. Lipnack J., Stamps J. Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology 1997, Wiley, New York.
50. Lungeanu A., Huang Y., Contractor N.S. Understanding the assembly of interdisciplinary teams and its impact on performance. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8:59-70.
51. March J.G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 1991, 2:71-87.
52. Marks M.A., DeChurch L.A., Mathieu J.E., Panzer F.J., Alonso A. Teamwork in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology 2005, 90:964-971.
53. Mathieu J., Marks M., Zaccaro S. Multi-team systems. International handbook of work and organizational psychology 2001, 289-313. Sage Publications, London, UK. N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. Sinangil (Eds.).
54. McGrath J.E., Kravitz D.A. Group research. Annual Review of Psychology 1982, 33:195-230.
55. Melin G., Persson O. Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics 1996, 36:363-377.
56. Morgan S.L., Winship C. Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research 2007, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
57. Nonaka I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 1994, 5:14-37.
58. Pearce C.L., Ensley M.D. A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation process: The central role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams (PPITs). Journal of Organizational Behavior 2004, 25:259-278.
59. Perretti F., Negro G. Filling empty seats: How status and organizational hierarchies affect exploration versus exploitation in team design. Academy of Management Journal 2006, 49:759-777.
60. Pfeffer J., Salancik G.R. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective 1978, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
61. Porac J.F., Wade J.B., Fischer H.M., Brown J., Kanfer A., Bowker G. Human capital heterogeneity, collaborative relationships, and publication patterns in a multidisciplinary scientific alliance: A comparative case study of two scientific teams. Research Policy 2004, 33:661-678.
62. Reagans R., Argote L., Brooks D. Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Science 2005, 51:869-881.
63. Rogers J.D. Citation analysis of nanotechnology at the field level: Implications of R&D evaluation. Research Evaluation 2010, 19:281-290.
64. Shrum W., Chompalov I., Genuth J. Trust, conflict and performance in scientific collaborations. Social Studies of Science 2001, 31:681-730.
65. Simonton D.K. Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist 2004, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York, NY.
66. Skilton P.F., Dooley K.J. The effects of repeated collaboration on creative abrasion. Academy of Management Review 2010, 35:118-134.
67. Somaya D., Williamson I.O., Zhang X.M. Combining patent law expertise with R&D for patenting performance. Organization Science 2007, 18:922-937.
68. StataCorp xtnbreg 2013, Available at: http://www.stata.com/manuals13/xtxtnbreg.pdf.
69. StataCorp xtpoisson 2013, Available at: http://www.stata.com/manuals13/xtxtpoisson.pdf.
70. Stephan P.E. How economics shapes science? 2012, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
71. Stephan P.E., Levin S.G. Inequality in scientific performance: Adjustment for attribution and journal impact. Social Studies of Science 1991, 21:351-368.
72. Stewart G.L. A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management 2006, 32:29-55.
73. Stokols D., Hall K.L., Taylor B.K., Moser R.P. The science of team science: Overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008, 35:S77-S89.
74. Tang L., Hu G. Tracing the footprint of knowledge spillover: Evidence from US-China collaboration in nanotechnology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64:1791-1801.
75. Townsend A.M., DeMarie S.M., Hendrickson A.R. Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive 1998, 12:17-29.
76. Uzzi B., Mukherjee S., Stringer M., Jones B. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 2013, 342:468-472.
77. Van Raan A.F.J. Sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics 2004, 59:467-472.
78. Wang J. Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics 2013, 94:851-872.
79. Wang J. Unpacking the Matthew effect in citations. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8:329-339.
80. Wang J., Berzins K., Hicks D., Melkers J., Xiao F., Pinheiro D. A boosted-trees method for name disambiguation. Scientometrics 2012, 93:391-411.
81. Wellman B. An electronic group is virtually a social network. Culture of the Internet 1997, 179-208. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Erlbaum, NJ. S. Kiesler (Ed.).
82. Whitley R. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences 2000, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK/New York, NY.
83. Woodman R.W., Sawyer J.E., Griffin R.W. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review 1993, 18:293-321.
84. Wooldridge J.M. Distribution-free estimation of some nonlinear panel data models. Journal of Econometrics 1999, 90:77-97.
85. Wuchty S., Jones B.F., Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 2007, 316:1036-1039.
86. Zhu M., Huang Y., Contractor N.S. Motivations for self-assembling into project teams. Social Networks 2013, 35:251-264.