Science of Team Science (SciTS) is a methodological field that examines and enhancescross-disciplinary collaboration in research. It encompasses conceptual and methodological strategies to understand how scientific research teams can be optimally organized for maximum effectiveness.[1] SciTS initiatives systematically investigate and manage factors influencing collaborative science while evaluating its outcomes.[2][3][4]
Since the 1990s, interest and large-scale funding for team-based research initiatives have increased substantially, driven by efforts to address complex problems through cross-disciplinary collaboration.[2][5][6][7] This trend reflects growing recognition that multifaceted challenges—such as climate change and public health crises—benefit substantially from partnerships among scientists and practitioners from diverse fields.[5][6][8] One SciTS literature review identified team science as essential to interprofessional collaborative research.[9] The report advocated for its integration into health professions education and clinical practice at theUniversity of Minnesota's National Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education.
The interdisciplinary nature of SciTS emerged from concerns raised by funding agencies seeking to assess team science performance, understand its added value, evaluate returns on investment in large research initiatives, and inform science policy.[2] The term "science of team science" was first introduced in October 2006 at a conference titledThe Science of Team Science: Assessing the Value of Transdisciplinary Research, hosted by theNational Cancer Institute inBethesda, Maryland.[10] The field was further developed in a supplement to theAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine published in July 2008. The First Annual International Science of Team Science (SciTS) Conference was held on April 22–24, 2010, in Chicago, Illinois, organized by theNorthwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences (NUCATS) Institute.
In 2013, theNational Academy of Sciences established a National Research Council Committee on the Science of Team Science to evaluate the current state of knowledge and practice in SciTS.[11] A committee report was published in 2015.[12]
A 2023 review by Forscher et al. identified benefits of big team science, noting that innovations facilitate collection of larger samples and support efforts towardreproducibility andgeneralizability.[13][14] However, concerns persist that team science could increasingly influence funding priorities, potentially shifting emphasis fromapplied science to more theoretical research areas and leading to unsuccessful large-scale projects.[15] Forscher recommended creating advisory boards and structuredby-laws, formalizing contributor feedback mechanisms, engaging inmentoring, and separating idea generation from project implementation.[14]
Definitions of team success may vary among stakeholders.[2] SciTS employs bothqualitative andquantitative methods to evaluate antecedent conditions, collaborative processes, and outcomes associated with team science, while also considering organizational, social, and political contexts that influence scientific collaboration.[2]
A 2018 literature review of SciTS publications between 2006 and 2016 identified 109 articles, reporting that 75% utilized pre-existing data (e.g., archival data), 62% employedbibliometrics, over 40% usedsurveys, and more than 10% incorporated interview and observational data.[16]
^Committee on the Science of Team Science; et al. (July 15, 2015).Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.doi:10.17226/19007.ISBN978-0-309-31682-8.PMID26247083.
^Köhler, Tine; Cortina, Jose M. (February 2021). "Play It Again, Sam! An Analysis of Constructive Replication in the Organizational Sciences".Journal of Management.47 (2):488–518.doi:10.1177/0149206319843985.hdl:11343/227060.ISSN0149-2063.
^abForscher, Patrick S.; Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan; Coles, Nicholas A.; Silan, Miguel Alejandro; Dutra, Natália; Basnight-Brown, Dana; IJzerman, Hans (May 2023). "The Benefits, Barriers, and Risks of Big-Team Science".Perspectives on Psychological Science.18 (3):607–623.doi:10.1177/17456916221082970.ISSN1745-6916.PMID36190899.
