Large teams mainly develop scientific knowledge rather than disrupt it
Large Teams Consistently Develop Science
Digital LibrariesSocial and Information Networks
Summary
Scientists wanted to know whether big teams or small teams create new ideas by challenging old ones or by building on them. They checked different ways to measure this and found that one newer measure wrongly called big teams disruptive, while the original measure showed big teams mostly improve and develop existing science. They confirmed that even after adjusting for how many sources teams use, big teams tend to build on current knowledge. This helps us better understand how teams of different sizes contribute to scientific progress.
What this means in practice
- •For science policy makers: Design funding and support programs that recognize large teams as key contributors to developing established scientific knowledge.
- •For academic publishing analysts: Improve evaluation tools by using disruption indexes that correctly distinguish between team roles in advancing versus challenging science.
Authors
Yiling Lin, Lulin Yang, Lingfei Wu
Abstract
Scientific progress depends on both developing established knowledge and disrupting it to make way for new ideas. Using the disruption index (D), our previous work showed that large teams tend to develop science, while small teams are more likely to disrupt it. Recent work challenges this finding, arguing that D mechanically depends on reference-list length. Using an alternative measure (oneD), it reaches the opposite conclusion: large teams are more disruptive. Combining Nobel Prize case studies, mathematical analysis, and large-scale publication data, we show that oneD misclassifies developmental contributions as disruptive and introduces the very sensitivity to reference-list length that it seeks to eliminate. The original measure, D, however, shows no evidence of the claimed systematic dependence on reference-list length. More fundamentally, even after controlling for reference-list length, larger teams remain more likely to produce strongly developmental work. Our findings reaffirm that large teams consistently develop science and offer new insights into the measurement of scientific disruption.