Collaboration: Group theory

Whitfield, John

doi:10.1038/455720a

Cited by 57 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The importance of teams is nowadays widely accepted [1], [2]; we know that the composition of teams determines their odds of success [3], [4]. However, it is unclear how team processes lead to greater performance or how individual roles and strengths are combined for optimal results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the Performance of Individual Players in a Team Activity

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTeamwork is a fundamental aspect of many human activities, from business to art and from sports to science. Recent research suggest that team work is of crucial importance to cutting-edge scientific research, but little is known about how teamwork leads to greater creativity. Indeed, for many team activities, it is not even clear how to assign credit to individual team members. Remarkably, at least in the context of sports, there is usually a broad consensus on who are the top performers and on what qualifies as an outstanding performance.Methodology/Principal FindingsIn order to determine how individual features can be quantified, and as a test bed for other team-based human activities, we analyze the performance of players in the European Cup 2008 soccer tournament. We develop a network approach that provides a powerful quantification of the contributions of individual players and of overall team performance.Conclusions/SignificanceWe hypothesize that generalizations of our approach could be useful in other contexts where quantification of the contributions of individual team members is important.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the Performance of Individual Players in a Team Activity

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Changes in the balance of research done by the lone scientist and that done by teams can be seen in co-authorship data 2 . Coauthorship has been increasing inexorably 3,4 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The rise of research networks

Adams

2012

Nature

358

221

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In recent decades, co-authorship has become an objective of scientific collaboration [5, 6]. The number of papers published during the last 35 years has kept pace with the number of scientists working in each field, as demonstrated by several studies that have observed progressive increases in local and international collaborations between authors and institutions [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the authors did not explore whether these network structures increased the quality of scientific evidence. Although collaborations between several authors appear to facilitate productivity, co-authorship does not ensure scientific quality [5]. When papers receive the same weight in bibliometric indices, regardless of authorship status (i.e., single-authored, first-authored, or co-authored with hundreds of others), investigators might less rigorously select increasing numbers of co-authors [8], a practice that may even result in beneficial reciprocal co-authorship [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Author-paper affiliation network architecture influences the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of psoriasis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moderate-to-severe psoriasis is associated with significant comorbidity, an impaired quality of life, and increased medical costs, including those associated with treatments. Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized clinical trials are considered two of the best approaches to the summarization of high-quality evidence. However, methodological bias can reduce the validity of conclusions from these types of studies and subsequently impair the quality of decision making. As co-authorship is among the most well-documented forms of research collaboration, the present study aimed to explore whether authors’ collaboration methods might influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs of psoriasis. Methodological quality was assessed by two raters who extracted information from full articles. After calculating total and per-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores, reviews were classified as low (0-4), medium (5-8), or high (9-11) quality. Article metadata and journal-related bibliometric indices were also obtained. A total of 741 authors from 520 different institutions and 32 countries published 220 reviews that were classified as high (17.2%), moderate (55%), or low (27.7%) methodological quality. The high methodological quality subnetwork was larger but had a lower connection density than the low and moderate methodological quality subnetworks; specifically, the former contained relatively fewer nodes (authors and reviews), reviews by authors, and collaborators per author. Furthermore, the high methodological quality subnetwork was highly compartmentalized, with several modules representing few poorly interconnected communities. In conclusion, structural differences in author-paper affiliation network may influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs on psoriasis. As the author-paper affiliation network structure affects study quality in this research field, authors who maintain an appropriate balance between scientific quality and productivity are more likely to develop higher quality reviews.

show abstract

Collaboration: Group theory

Cited by 57 publications

References 8 publications

Quantifying the Performance of Individual Players in a Team Activity

Quantifying the Performance of Individual Players in a Team Activity

The rise of research networks

Author-paper affiliation network architecture influences the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of psoriasis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About