ArticleNature2019
Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology.
Article in Nature, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 181 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
181 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The characteristics of early-stage research into human genes are substantially different from subsequent research.PLoS biology · 2022Pooled it
- A review and meta-analysis of collaborative research prioritization studies in ecology, biodiversity conservation and environmental science.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2020Pooled it
- Disruption in Wrist Literature: Identifying Paradigm-Shifting Publications.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- Article
- How contemporary academic structures constrain scientific creativity and hold back early-career researchers.Nature human behaviour · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Editorial and peer review dynamics at elite general science journals.Science advances · 2026Article
- What are the most disruptive publications in shoulder surgery?JSES international · 2026Article
- Strengthening translational medical research in Ireland: an interdisciplinary framework for clinician-scientist collaboration.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- A CD index guided ensemble framework for screening potentially disruptive patent candidates in artificial intelligence.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Informal connections outweigh coauthorship ties in academic impact.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- More papers, fewer breakthroughs: Can AI reshape scientific discovery?Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2026Article
- A digital archive reveals how a funding agency cooperated with academics to support the nascent field of genomics.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Uncovering simultaneous breakthroughs with a robust measure of disruptiveness.Science advances · 2026Article
- Global landscape of juvenile dermatomyositis research: a bibliometric analysis.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- A Blue Start: A large-scale pairwise and higher-order social network dataset.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Interdisciplinary papers supported by disciplinary grants garner deep and broad scientific impact.PNAS nexus · 2026Article
- SciSciGPT: advancing human-AI collaboration in the science of science.Nature computational science · 2026Article
121 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the most universal trends in science and technology today is the growth of large teams in all areas, as solitary researchers and small teams diminish in prevalence
Indexed as
Identifiers
30760923What 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.