ArticlePloS one2025
Membership in team science institute enhances diversity of researchers' collaboration networks.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interdisciplinary scientific teams are subject to a complex constellation of potential benefits, such as enabling innovation, and challenges, such as increased conflict and failure. Given these tensions, scholars and practitioners are increasingly interested in the role that organizational policies and resources can play in potentially mitigating the challenges faced on interdisciplinary teams. We report results from quantitative case study of a research institute dedicated to providing resources to enable interdisciplinary scientific teams, to examine how joining an organization with resources devoted to interdisciplinarity affected researchers' collaborations. We adopt bibliometric network techniques to explore the productivity and diversity of scientists' collaborations before and after joining the institute. Generalized linear mixed-effect modeling shows a significant increase for researchers in their number of papers and co-authors after joining the institute. Comparison to a matched pair control group indicates researchers who joined the institute experienced a significantly greater increase in their diversity of co-authors, and no relative decrease in the number of papers produced, despite challenges inherent to interdisciplinary collaboration. These findings suggest institutional resources can operate to broaden collaboration diversity without harming researcher productivity, which has important implications for team science and science policy.
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.