2014
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2434327
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Anatomy of Teams: Division of Labor and Allocation of Credit in Collaborative Knowledge Production

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They find that having a greater field variety of team members is associated with more novel scientific outcomes. Häussler and Sauermann () found that novel fields in science have more division of labor and more interdisciplinary contributions. Adams and Clemmons () showed that interdisciplinary knowledge flows enhance scientific productivity but they do so to a lesser extent compared to the same‐field flows and suggests that the costs of sourcing from a distant knowledge domain are greater than those of sourcing from one's own domain.…”
Section: Theory and Hypothesesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They find that having a greater field variety of team members is associated with more novel scientific outcomes. Häussler and Sauermann () found that novel fields in science have more division of labor and more interdisciplinary contributions. Adams and Clemmons () showed that interdisciplinary knowledge flows enhance scientific productivity but they do so to a lesser extent compared to the same‐field flows and suggests that the costs of sourcing from a distant knowledge domain are greater than those of sourcing from one's own domain.…”
Section: Theory and Hypothesesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indexing systems such as Thomson Reuters and universities would also need to develop support for creditmaps. Similar complementary changes have also been discussed recently, aimed at characterizing contributions rather than assigning weights [18,19,20].…”
Section: Using Json-ld For Transitive Creditmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…By tradition, in most fields of science the principal investigator is listed as the last author of the paper. Haussler and Sauermann () find that two‐thirds of the corresponding authors in articles published in PLosONE are last authors; virtually all the other corresponding authors are first author. A survey of 2016 issues of the journal Science by the authors finds slightly more than 79 per cent of corresponding authors to be the last author, slightly more than 19 per cent to be the first author and the remaining 1 per cent to occupy middle‐author positions…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research shows that corresponding authors are not randomly assigned but instead play a special role in the research. Haussler and Sauermann () find, for example, that being a corresponding author ‘is strongly predicted by conceptual contributions and writing but not by having performed the experiment’ (2014, p. 24). The finding is corroborated if one considers the corresponding authors position in authors lists.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%