Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41739830›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

The mosaic of science: Disciplinary diversity and scientific prestige in research groups in Colombia.

Julián D Cortés

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Julián D CortésSchool of Management and Business, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1246-2160

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Collaboration among science teams is essential for addressing complex global challenges. A key feature of such collaboration is disciplinary diversity; however, its relationship with team performance remains debated. Existing research has focused primarily on high-income countries and has relied on proprietary databases, often overlooking the distinctive scientific ecosystems of middle- and low-income nations. This geographical and methodological bias has created a gap in understanding how team composition affects scientific outcomes in these underrepresented contexts. This study examines a ten-year period using publicly available data from all Colombian research groups maintained by the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation (MinCiencias). Disciplinary diversity was measured using the DIV indicator proposed by Leydesdorff et al. We show that the relationship between disciplinary diversity and scientific prestige is non-linear and moderated by both group size and broad disciplinary area. Our analysis identifies two main findings: low diversity consistently characterizes research groups with a declining performance trajectory, and groups that advance in national rank exhibit a statistically similar diversity structure to those following a volatile trajectory in the national ranking. These results challenge the assumption that increasing diversity necessarily leads to better performance. Instead, they indicate that the functional role of diversity is not monotonic and that an optimal, context-specific level may exist. This nationwide study contributes to science policy by demonstrating that fostering field-dependent diversity structures, rather than maximizing diversity indiscriminately, may be critical for strengthening integrative and transformative research systems in emerging economies.

Indexed as

ScienceColombiaCooperative BehaviorHumansWorkforce Diversity

Identifiers

PMID41739830
PMCPMC12935232

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.