ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026
Organizational change readiness for team science: a pathway framework for team science success.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Team Science Readiness Framework for scientific research collaboration.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
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
Since the early 21st century, team science has significantly influenced emerging perspectives, processes, and expectations across various industries, human development, and scholarly activities. Research over the past 25 years-drawing on psychology, management, social psychology, anthropology, organizational sciences, and sociology-has shaped best practices and redefined how academics and practitioners approach collaborative work. Despite substantial progress in understanding team dynamics, a critical gap remains: the absence of a clearly defined professional pathway for team scientists and science workers. Specifically, there is a lack of a secure, structured pipeline that supports training, recognition, and career advancement in team science roles. This paper addresses the limited presence of systematic organizational strategies that help science workers from the early stages of their careers through long-term professional growth. As higher education confronts a shifting paradigm, institutions must now prepare students not only as disciplinary experts but also as collaborators equipped to thrive in a cross-disciplinary, problem-solving environment that embraces the workforce competencies employers seek. We examine the organizational requirements and challenges necessary to ensure success in science careers, emphasizing developmental training, robust mentorship, the professionalization and institutionalization of team structures, and sustaining collaboration. These elements are essential for preparing a workforce that is capable, resilient, and ready for the demands of future collaborative scientific endeavors.
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.