Orderly groups invent and tiny groups disrupt science and technology – Nature.com

  • 1.

    Guimerà, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro, J. & Amaral, L. A. N. Crew assembly mechanisms resolve collaboration community structure and crew performance. Science 308, 697–702 (2005).

  • 2.

    Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F. & Uzzi, B. The rising dominance of groups in production of files. Science 316, 1036–1039 (2007).

  • 3.

    Hunter, L. & Leahey, E. Collaborative analysis in sociology: traits and contributing components. Am. Sociol. 39, 290–306 (2008).

  • four.

    Jones, B. F., Wuchty, S. & Uzzi, B. Multi-university analysis groups: transferring impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science 322, 1259–1262 (2008).

  • 5.

    Xie, Y. “Undemocracy”: inequalities in science. Science 344, 809–810 (2014).

  • 6.

    Milojević, S. Principles of scientific analysis crew formation and evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3984–3989 (2014).

  • 7.

    Falk-Krzesinski, H. J. et al. Mapping a analysis agenda for the science of crew science. Res. Eval. 20, a hundred Forty five–158 (2011).

  • Eight.

    Committee on the Science of Crew Science. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Crew Science (Nationwide Academies Press, Washington DC, 2015).

  • 9.

    Leahey, E. From sole investigator to crew scientist: traits in the apply and request of analysis collaboration. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 42, eighty one–a hundred (2016).

  • 10.

    Paulus, P. B., Kohn, N. W., Arditti, L. E. & Korde, R. M. Determining the crew size carry out in digital brainstorming. Small Crew Res. forty four, 332–352 (2013).

  • 11.

    Lakhani, Okay. R. et al. Prize-based mostly contests can provide alternate ideas to computational biology concerns. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 108–111 (2013).

  • 12.

    Barber, S. J., Harris, C. B. & Rajaram, S. Why two heads apart are greater than two heads collectively: multiple mechanisms underlie the collaborative inhibition carry out in memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Be taught. Mem. Cogn. forty one, 559–566 (2015).

  • 13.

    Minson, J. A. & Mueller, J. S. The associated price of collaboration: why joint resolution making exacerbates rejection of beginning air files. Psychol. Sci. 23, 219–224 (2012).

  • 14.

    Greenstein, S. & Zhu, F. Initiate lisp material, Linus’ law, and unbiased point of survey. Inf. Syst. Res. 27, 618–635 (2016).

  • 15.

    Christensen, C. M. The Innovator’s Predicament: The Modern Book That Will Commerce the Manner You Attain Commerce (Harper Commerce, Novel York, 2011).

  • sixteen.

    Klug, M. & Bagrow, J. P. Determining the crew dynamics and success of groups. R. Soc. Initiate Sci. 3, 160007 (2016).

  • 17.

    Bak, P., Tang, C. & Wiesenfeld, Okay. Self-organized criticality: an explanation of the 1/f noise. Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 381–384 (1987).

  • 18.

    Davis, Okay. B. et al. Bose–Einstein condensation in a gasoline of sodium atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. seventy five, 3969–3973 (1995).

  • 19.

    Bose, S. N. Plancks Gesetz und Lichtquantenhypothese. Z. Physik 26, 178–181 (1924).

  • 20.

    Einstein, A. Quantentheorie des einatomigen idealen Gases. Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1, 3 (1925).

  • 21.

    March, J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational studying. Organ. Sci. 2, seventy one–87 (1991).

  • 22.

    Funk, R. J. & Owen-Smith, J. A dynamic community measure of technological switch. Prepare. Sci. 63, 791–817 (2017).

  • 23.

    Temperamental, J. The structure of a social science collaboration community: disciplinary concord from 1963 to 1999. Am. Sociol. Rev. sixty nine, 213–238 (2004).

  • 24.

    Ke, Q., Ferrara, E., Radicchi, F. & Flammini, A. Defining and figuring out Sound asleep Beauties in science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7426–7431 (2015).

  • 25.

    Wang, D., Song, C. & Barabási, A.-L. Quantifying lengthy-time length scientific impact. Science 342, 127–132 (2013).

  • 26.

    Evans, J. A. Electronic newsletter and the narrowing of science and scholarship. Science 321, 395–399 (2008).

  • 27.

    Gerow, A., Hu, Y., Boyd-Graber, J., Blei, D. M. & Evans, J. A. Measuring discursive impact all over scholarship. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA a hundred and fifteen, 3308–3313 (2018).

  • 28.

    Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M. & Jones, B. Strange combos and scientific impact. Science 342, 468–472 (2013).

  • 29.

    Kuhn, T. S. The characteristic of dimension in sleek physical science. Isis fifty two, 161–193 (1961).

  • 30.

    Collins, D. Organizational Commerce: Sociological Views (Routledge, Novel York, 1998).

  • 31.

    Jones, B. F. The burden of files and the ‘loss of life of the Renaissance man’: is innovation getting more difficult? Rev. Econ. Stud. seventy six, 283–317 (2009).

  • 32.

    Alcácer, J., Gittleman, M. & Sampat, B. Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: an outline and prognosis. Res. Coverage 38, 415–427 (2009).

  • 33.

    Schulz, C., Mazloumian, A., Petersen, A. M., Penner, O. & Helbing, D. Exploiting quotation networks for expedient-scale creator name disambiguation. EPJ Knowledge Sci. 3, 11 (2014).

  • 34.

    Mutz, R., Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H.-D. Harmful-disciplinary analysis: What configurations of fields of science are chanced on in grant proposals nowadays? Res. Eval. 24, 30–36 (2015).

  • 35.

    Le, Q. & Mikolov, T. Distributed representations of sentences and documents. In Proc. thirty first Worldwide Conference on Machine Studying (eds Xing, E. P. & Jebara, T.) 1188–1196 (PLMR, Beijing, 2014).

  • 36.

    Correia, S. A feasible estimator for linear items with multi-manner mounted effects. Preprint at http://scorreia.com/analysis/hdfe.pdf (2016).

  • 37.

    Corpulent textual lisp material of Alfred Nobel’s will, accessible at https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/beefy-textual lisp material-of-alfred-nobels-will/ (accessed 25 September 2018).

  • Read More

    Leave a Reply