ArticleScience and engineering ethics2014
A quantitative perspective on ethics in large team science.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- From human teams to hybrid intelligence teams: identifying, characterizing, and evaluating foundational quality attributes.Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems · 2026Article
- Scientific priorities and relational dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study.Accountability in research · 2024Article
- Team science criteria and processes for promotion and tenure of Health Science University Faculty.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Quantifying the impact of strong ties in international scientific research collaboration.PloS one · 2023Article
- Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Text Recycling in Scientific Writing.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Cross-disciplinary evolution of the genomics revolution.Science advances · 2018Article
- Quantifying the negative impact of brain drain on the integration of European science.Science advances · 2017Article
- Connecting Past with Present: A Mixed-Methods Science Ethics Course and its Evaluation.Science and engineering ethics · 2016Article
- Article
- Quantifying the impact of weak, strong, and super ties in scientific careers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015Article
- Filling the Network Gap in Research Ethics: Analyzing Ethical Issues at Scale in Big Team Science.The Hastings Center reportArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The gradual crowding out of singleton and small team science by large team endeavors is challenging key features of research culture. It is therefore important for the future of scientific practice to reflect upon the individual scientist's ethical responsibilities within teams. To facilitate this reflection we show labor force trends in the US revealing a skewed growth in academic ranks and increased levels of competition for promotion within the system; we analyze teaming trends across disciplines and national borders demonstrating why it is becoming difficult to distribute credit and to avoid conflicts of interest; and we use more than a century of Nobel prize data to show how science is outgrowing its old institutions of singleton awards. Of particular concern within the large team environment is the weakening of the mentor-mentee relation, which undermines the cultivation of virtue ethics across scientific generations. These trends and emerging organizational complexities call for a universal set of behavioral norms that transcend team heterogeneity and hierarchy. To this end, our expository analysis provides a survey of ethical issues in team settings to inform science ethics education and science policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24919946What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.