IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/urv/wpaper/2072-417677.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the disruptive power of small-teams research

Author

Listed:
  • Osório, António (António Miguel)
  • Bornmann, Lutz

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that research by small teams is more likely to lead to disruptive results than research by large teams. Disruptive research challenges established paradigms. This paper offers a possible theory to explain this paradox. We argue that individuals in possession of research ideas with great disruptive potential have incentives to form small teams and compensate potential group weaknesses with a greater research effort rather than considering additional co-authors. Additional co-authors have the advantage of bringing more overall effort and expertise to the team, reducing technical difficulties, and increasing the chances of success and the potential value of the ideas. We show that individuals in possession of potentially disruptive research ideas prefer to keep teams as small as possible, because the resulting credits per co-author decrease as the value of the project is split among more co-authors. Keywords: Bibliometrics, Scientific impact, Disruption, Research teams’ size. JEL classification: C72, O31.

Suggested Citation

  • Osório, António (António Miguel) & Bornmann, Lutz, 2020. "On the disruptive power of small-teams research," Working Papers 2072/417677, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:urv:wpaper:2072/417677
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2072/417677
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henrik Dimke & Maria Theresa Norn & Peter Munk Christiansen & Jeppe Wohlert & Nikolaj Thomas Zinner, 2019. "Most scientists prefer small and mid-sized research grants," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(8), pages 765-767, August.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Osório, António, 2019. "The value and credits of n-authors publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 540-554.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. António Osório & Lutz Bornmann, 2021. "On the disruptive power of small-teams research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 117-133, January.
    2. João M. Fernandes & Paulo Cortez, 2020. "Alphabetic order of authors in scholarly publications: a bibliometric study for 27 scientific fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2773-2792, December.
    3. Siying Li & Huawei Shen & Peng Bao & Xueqi Cheng, 2021. "$$h_u$$ h u -index: a unified index to quantify individuals across disciplines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3209-3226, April.
    4. Simoes, Nadia & Crespo, Nuno, 2020. "Self-Citations and scientific evaluation: Leadership, influence, and performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1).
    5. Aman, Valeria & Besselaar, Peter van den, 2024. "Authorship regulations in performance-based funding systems and publication behaviour – A case study of German medical faculties," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    6. Lawrence Smolinsky & Daniel S. Sage & Aaron J. Lercher & Aaron Cao, 2021. "Citations versus expert opinions: citation analysis of featured reviews of the American Mathematical Society," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3853-3870, May.
    7. Peixin Duan, 2022. "How large of a grant size is appropriate? Evidence from the National Natural Science Foundation of China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-14, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bibliometria; Equips de recerca; 00 - Ciència i coneixement. Investigació. Cultura. Humanitats; 02 - Biblioteconomia. Documentació;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:urv:wpaper:2072/417677. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ariadna Casals (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deurves.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.