Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41717463›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026

Overcoming disciplinary divides in scientific collaboration: challenges and pathways.

Jordan A Johnson, Marlee J Moore, Madison B Washam, Allison M Traylor

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jordan A JohnsonDepartment of Psychology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.
Marlee J MooreDepartment of Psychology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.
Madison B WashamDepartment of Psychology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.
Allison M TraylorDepartment of Psychology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interdisciplinary science teams combine diverse expertise to address complex societal challenges and are increasingly vital for advancing research and innovation. However, differences between team members can hinder effective collaboration in these teams. This mini review examines common challenges in interdisciplinary science teams and outlines strategies from team science to address them. We highlight five challenges that undermine team effectiveness: communication across disciplinary boundaries, developing shared mental models and role clarity, navigating hierarchies and status differences, building shared affect and trust, and efficiently using and distributing knowledge. The review includes different recommendations for managing interdisciplinary teamwork, emphasizing evidence-based practices that promote integration, collaboration, and long-term team success.

Indexed as

interdisciplinary collaborationknowledge integrationteam dynamicsteam processteam science

Identifiers

PMID41717463
PMCPMC12913076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.