Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41960243›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Process makes perfect: mapping science team behavior across phases.

Angie N Benda, William S Kramer, Hanna M Johnston, Kelsey Ciagala, Danielle J Crawford, Kayla N Lacey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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

6 authors.

Angie N BendaDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE, United States.
William S KramerDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE, United States.
Hanna M JohnstonDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE, United States.
Kelsey CiagalaDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE, United States.
Danielle J CrawfordDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE, United States.
Kayla N LaceyDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern technological and methodological advancements in science require experts to collaborate to answer more complex questions. Science teams are uniquely equipped with expertise to explore novel approaches to answer these questions. Prior research has advanced the understanding of science teams through stage-based models, but a gap remains in integrating these models with process models. To address this gap, we draw on two foundational frameworks-the four-phased transdisciplinary team development model and the temporally grounded framework of team processes-to develop an integrated conceptual framework of science team behavior. We synthesize these two frameworks using a conceptual integration approach to map team processes with the focal activities that characterize the four phases of science teams. This integration highlights the criticality of transition processes in shaping coordination and the development of shared knowledge of team progress. The resulting framework offers insight into the dynamic nature of science teams and their processes, identifying what is most salient in each stage and what shifts as teams adapt. In doing so, we advance team science by elaborating on challenges that may be encountered and provide testable propositions to guide future empirical research and further support science teams.

Indexed as

collaborationscience of team sciencescience teamsteam processestranslational research

Identifiers

PMID41960243
PMCPMC13056852

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.