ArticleRoyal Society open science2023
How to build up big team science: a practical guide for large-scale collaborations.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Thinking Critically About Algorithms for Automated Detection of Behavior: 11 Guidelines for Social and Behavioral Scientists.Developmental science · 2026Article
- Launching an independent research laboratory in a digital era: practical lessons for early career investigators.NPP - digital psychiatry and neuroscience · 2026Review
- Unifying to Advance Understanding: Collaborative, Community-Driven and 'Open' Approaches for Better Science in Sport.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- The tension between big team science and colonial power dynamics.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Dyadic Care Interventions and Outcomes for Mothers and Their Infants: A Scoping Review.Pediatrics · 2025Article
- A guide to developing harmonized research workflows in a team science context.Experimental neurology · 2025Review
- Big team science reveals promises and limitations of machine learning efforts to model physiological markers of affective experience.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Designing and implementing solution-oriented team science initiatives-a chronic pain example.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Revisiting perceptual sensitivity to non-native speech in a diverse sample of bilinguals.Infant behavior & development · 2024Article
- Breaking barriers towards credible research: Outcomes of a workshop at the BNA Festival of Neuroscience 2025.Brain and neuroscience advancesArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The past decade has witnessed a proliferation of big team science (BTS), endeavours where a comparatively large number of researchers pool their intellectual and/or material resources in pursuit of a common goal. Despite this burgeoning interest, there exists little guidance on how to create, manage and participate in these collaborations. In this paper, we integrate insights from a multi-disciplinary set of BTS initiatives to provide a how-to guide for BTS. We first discuss initial considerations for launching a BTS project, such as building the team, identifying leadership, governance, tools and open science approaches. We then turn to issues related to running and completing a BTS project, such as study design, ethical approvals and issues related to data collection, management and analysis. Finally, we address topics that present special challenges for BTS, including authorship decisions, collaborative writing and team decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.