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).
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F. & Uzzi, B. The rising dominance of groups in production of files. Science 316, 1036–1039 (2007).
Hunter, L. & Leahey, E. Collaborative analysis in sociology: traits and contributing components. Am. Sociol. 39, 290–306 (2008).
Jones, B. F., Wuchty, S. & Uzzi, B. Multi-university analysis groups: transferring impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science 322, 1259–1262 (2008).
Xie, Y. “Undemocracy”: inequalities in science. Science 344, 809–810 (2014).
Milojević, S. Principles of scientific analysis crew formation and evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3984–3989 (2014).
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).
Committee on the Science of Crew Science. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Crew Science (Nationwide Academies Press, Washington DC, 2015).
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).
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).
Lakhani, Okay. R. et al. Prize-based mostly contests can provide alternate ideas to computational biology concerns. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 108–111 (2013).
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).
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).
Greenstein, S. & Zhu, F. Initiate lisp material, Linus’ law, and unbiased point of survey. Inf. Syst. Res. 27, 618–635 (2016).
Christensen, C. M. The Innovator’s Predicament: The Modern Book That Will Commerce the Manner You Attain Commerce (Harper Commerce, Novel York, 2011).
Klug, M. & Bagrow, J. P. Determining the crew dynamics and success of groups. R. Soc. Initiate Sci. 3, 160007 (2016).
Bak, P., Tang, C. & Wiesenfeld, Okay. Self-organized criticality: an explanation of the 1/f noise. Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 381–384 (1987).
Davis, Okay. B. et al. Bose–Einstein condensation in a gasoline of sodium atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. seventy five, 3969–3973 (1995).
Bose, S. N. Plancks Gesetz und Lichtquantenhypothese. Z. Physik 26, 178–181 (1924).
Einstein, A. Quantentheorie des einatomigen idealen Gases. Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1, 3 (1925).
March, J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational studying. Organ. Sci. 2, seventy one–87 (1991).
Funk, R. J. & Owen-Smith, J. A dynamic community measure of technological switch. Prepare. Sci. 63, 791–817 (2017).
Temperamental, J. The structure of a social science collaboration community: disciplinary concord from 1963 to 1999. Am. Sociol. Rev. sixty nine, 213–238 (2004).
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).
Wang, D., Song, C. & Barabási, A.-L. Quantifying lengthy-time length scientific impact. Science 342, 127–132 (2013).
Evans, J. A. Electronic newsletter and the narrowing of science and scholarship. Science 321, 395–399 (2008).
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).
Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M. & Jones, B. Strange combos and scientific impact. Science 342, 468–472 (2013).
Kuhn, T. S. The characteristic of dimension in sleek physical science. Isis fifty two, 161–193 (1961).
Collins, D. Organizational Commerce: Sociological Views (Routledge, Novel York, 1998).
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).
Alcácer, J., Gittleman, M. & Sampat, B. Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: an outline and prognosis. Res. Coverage 38, 415–427 (2009).
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).
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).
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).
Correia, S. A feasible estimator for linear items with multi-manner mounted effects. Preprint at http://scorreia.com/analysis/hdfe.pdf (2016).
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).