The Benefits, Barriers, and Risks of Big-Team Science

Abstract

Progress in psychology has been frustrated by challenges concerning replicability, generalizability, strategy selection, inferential reproducibility, and computational reproducibility. Although often discussed separately, these five challenges may share a common cause: insufficient investment of intellectual and nonintellectual resources into the typical psychology study. We suggest that the emerging emphasis on big-team science can help address these challenges by allowing researchers to pool their resources together to increase the amount available for a single study. However, the current incentives, infrastructure, and institutions in academic science have all developed under the assumption that science is conducted by solo principal investigators and their dependent trainees, an assumption that creates barriers to sustainable big-team science. We also anticipate that big-team science carries unique risks, such as the potential for big-team-science organizations to be co-opted by unaccountable leaders, become overly conservative, and make mistakes at a grand scale. Big-team-science organizations must also acquire personnel who are properly compensated and have clear roles. Not doing so raises risks related to mismanagement and a lack of financial sustainability. If researchers can manage its unique barriers and risks, big-team science has the potential to spur great progress in psychology and beyond.

Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes

“…This project used a large, interdisciplinary Team Science approach to conduct the review and synthesize the evidence. Team Science approaches are useful for enhancing collaboration and increasing resources [36]. In this vein, we were able to include diverse perspectives due to contributors’ varied academic and cultural backgrounds, which we deemed especially important since approaches to and requirements for teaching in Higher Education vary substantially between countries.…”

How to build up big team science: a practical guide for large-scale collaborations

“…Table 2 shows a list of recommended tools for communication, collaboration and file storage-along with notes on what we view as their pros and cons. 3 As you evaluate which tools to use, it is important to consider both the usefulness and likelihood that members of the team will be willing and able to use 3 This list of tools is intended to provide guidance on the types of tools that we have found helpful and their characteristics. In some cases, geographical availability varies (e.g.…”

A manifesto for rewarding and recognising Team Infrastructure Roles

“…The power to confer authorship is bestowed primarily to the senior researchers(s) and, in many disciplines, only the first and last authors are deemed to have done the actual work. Practically, however, research builds on previous work as well as a diversity of contributions that do not always lead to authorship and are therefore not formally recognised (Coles et al, 2022;Forscher et al, 2020;Shirazi, 2014;Tiokhin et al, 2021). By focusing solely on individuals and first/last authorship positions on publications, the academic research system neglects the value of a broader set of contributors -with their own unique skills and expertise (Baum et al, 2022).…”