This article reviews trends in the practice and study of research collaboration, focusing on journal publications in academic science. I briefly describe the different styles and types of collaboration and then focus on the drivers of the trend toward increased collaboration and on its consequences for both individual researchers and science more generally. Scholarship on collaboration seems partial to delineating its benefits; this review highlights the increasing body of research that focuses instead on the possible costs of collaboration. The synthesis reveals several topics that are ripe for investigation, including the impact of collaboration on the contributing authors and their work, the use of multiple methods and measures, and research integrity. I applaud a few recent efforts to overcome the perennial file-drawer problem by gaining access to collaborations that do not result in publication and thus are typically removed from public review and the research analyst's eye.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Abramo G, D'Angelo CA, Murgia G. 2013. Gender differences in research collaboration. J. Informetr. 7:811–22 [Google Scholar]
  2. Abramo G, D'Angelo CA, Murgia G. 2014. Variation in research collaboration patterns across academic ranks. Scientometrics 98:2275–94 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahuja G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study. Adm. Sci. Q. 45:425–55 [Google Scholar]
  4. Araújo EB, Moreira AA, Furtado V, Pequeno THC, Andrade JJS. 2014. Collaboration networks from a large CV database: dynamics, topology and bonus impact. PLOS ONE 9:e90537 [Google Scholar]
  5. Azoulay P, Graff Zivin JS, Wang J. 2010. Superstar extinction. Q. J. Econ. 125:549–89 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barley WC. 2015. Anticipatory work: how the need to represent knowledge across boundaries shapes work practices within them. Organ. Sci. 26:61612–28 [Google Scholar]
  7. Beaver D, Rosen R. 1979. Studies in scientific collaboration. Part III. Professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics 1:231–45 [Google Scholar]
  8. Becker GS, Murphy KM. 1992. The division of labor, coordination costs, and knowledge. Q. J. Econ. 107:1137–60 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bennett LM, Gadlin H. 2012. Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice. J. Invest. Med.: Off. Publ. Am. Fed. Clin. Res. 60:768–75 [Google Scholar]
  10. Biagioli M. 2003. Rights or rewards?. Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science M Biagioli, P Galison 253–80 New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  11. Biancani S, McFarland DA, Dahlander L. 2014. The semiformal organization. Organ. Sci. 25:1306–24 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bikard M, Murray F, Gans JS. 2015. Exploring trade-offs in the organization of scientific work: collaboration and scientific reward. Manag. Sci. 61:1473–95 [Google Scholar]
  13. Binz-Scharf MC, Kalish Y, Paik L. 2015. Making science: new generations of collaborative knowledge production. Am. Behav. Sci. 59:531–47 [Google Scholar]
  14. Boardman C, Bozeman B. 2007. Role strain in university research centers. J. High. Educ. 78:430–63 [Google Scholar]
  15. Boardman C, Corley EA. 2008. University research centers and the composition of research collaborations. Res. Policy 37:900–13 [Google Scholar]
  16. Boardman C, Ponomariov B. 2014. Management knowledge and the organization of team science in university research centers. J. Technol. Transf. 39:75–92 [Google Scholar]
  17. Boh WF, Ren Y, Kiesler S, Bussjaeger R. 2007. Expertise and collaboration in the geographically dispersed organization. Organ. Sci. 18:595–612 [Google Scholar]
  18. Boix Mansilla V. 2006. Assessing expert interdisciplinary work at the frontier: an empirical exploration. Res. Eval. 15:17–29 [Google Scholar]
  19. Boix Mansilla V, Lamont M, Sato K. 2016. Shared cognitive–emotional–interactional platforms: markers and conditions for successful interdisciplinary collaborations. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values. 41571–612 [Google Scholar]
  20. Bourdieu P. 1975. Scientific method and the social hierarchy of objects. Actes Rech. Sci. Soc. 1:4–6 [Google Scholar]
  21. Bozeman B, Corley E. 2004. Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and human capital. Res. Policy 33:599–616 [Google Scholar]
  22. Bozeman B, Far D, Slade CP. 2013. Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the state-of-the-art. J. Technol. Transf. 38:1–67 [Google Scholar]
  23. Braun T, Schubert A. 2003. A quantitative view on the coming of age of interdisciplinarity in the sciences: 1980–1999. Scientometrics 58:183–89 [Google Scholar]
  24. Brint S. 2005. Creating the future: “new directions” in American research universities. Minerva: Rev. Sci. Learn. Policy 43:23–50 [Google Scholar]
  25. Carnabuci G, Bruggerman J. 2009. Knowledge specialization, knowledge brokerage, and the uneven growth of knowledge domains. Soc. Forces 88:607–42 [Google Scholar]
  26. Clark BY, Llorens JJ. 2012. Investments in scientific research: examining the funding threshold effects on scientific collaboration and variation by academic discipline. Policy Stud. J. 40:698–729 [Google Scholar]
  27. Clemens ES, Powell WW, McIlwaine K, Okamoto D. 1995. Careers in print: books, journals, and scholarly reputations. Am. J. Sociol. 101:433–94 [Google Scholar]
  28. Cole JR, Zuckerman H. 1975. The emergence of a scientific specialty: the self-exemplifying case of the sociology of science. The Idea of Social Structure: Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton LA Coser 139–74 New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich [Google Scholar]
  29. Collins R. 1986. Is 1980s sociology in the doldrums?. Am. J. Sociol. 91:1336–55 [Google Scholar]
  30. Colyvas JA, Powell WW. 2007. From vulnerable to venerated: the institutionalization of academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences. Res. Sociol. Organ. 25:219–59 [Google Scholar]
  31. Cooke NJ, Hilton ML. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  32. Crane D. 1969. Social structure in a group of scientists: a test of the “invisible college” hypothesis. Am. Sociol. Rev. 34:335–52 [Google Scholar]
  33. Crane D. 1972. Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  34. Cummings JN, Kiesler S. 2005. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35:703–22 [Google Scholar]
  35. Cummings JN, Kiesler S. 2007. Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Res. Policy 36:1620–34 [Google Scholar]
  36. Dahlander L, McFarland DA. 2013. Ties that last: tie formation and persistence in research collaborations over time. Adm. Sci. Q. 58:69–110 [Google Scholar]
  37. Davis JA. 2001. What's wrong with sociology?. What's Wrong with Sociology? S Cole 99–120 New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press [Google Scholar]
  38. de Solla Price DJ. 1963. Little Science, Big Science New York: Columbia Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  39. Duque RB, Ynalvez M, Sooryamoorthy R, Mbatia P, Dzorgbo D-BS, Shrum W. 2005. Collaboration paradox: scientific productivity, the Internet, and problems of research in developing areas. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35:755–85 [Google Scholar]
  40. Endersby JW. 1996. Collaborative research in the social sciences: multiple authorship and publication credit. Soc. Sci. Q. 77:375–92 [Google Scholar]
  41. Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Healey P. 1998. Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia Albany: SUNY Press [Google Scholar]
  42. Evans E. 2016. Measuring interdisciplinarity using text. Presented at Second Int. Conf. Comput. Soc. Sci., June 22-26, Evanston, IL [Google Scholar]
  43. Evans JA. 2008. Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship. Science 321:395–99 [Google Scholar]
  44. Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Borner K, Contractor N, Fiore SM, Hall KL. et al. 2010. Advancing the science of team science. CTS-Clin. Transl. Sci. 3:263–66 [Google Scholar]
  45. Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Contractor N, Fiore SM, Hall KL, Kane C. et al. 2011. Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science. Res. Eval. 20:145–58 [Google Scholar]
  46. Fiore SM. 2008. Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: how the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Res. 39:251–77 [Google Scholar]
  47. Fleming L, Mingo S, Chen D. 2007. Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Adm. Sci. Q. 52:443–75 [Google Scholar]
  48. Foster JG, Rzhetsky A, Evans JA. 2015. Tradition and innovation in scientists' research strategies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80:875–908 [Google Scholar]
  49. Fox MF. 1991. Gender, environmental milieu, and productivity in science. The Outer Circle H Zuckerman, J Cole, J Bruer 188–204 New York: W.W. Norton [Google Scholar]
  50. Freeman RB. 2014. Immigration, International Collaboration, and Innovation: Science and Technology Policy in the Global Economy Cambridge, MA: Natl. Bur. Econ. Res. [Google Scholar]
  51. Freeman RB, Ganguli I, Murciano-Goroff R. 2015. Why and wherefore of increased scientific collaboration. The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy AB Jaffe, BF Jones 17–48 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  52. Friedkin NE. 1978. University social structure and social networks among scientists. Am. J. Sociol. 83:1444–65 [Google Scholar]
  53. Fujimura J. 1996. Crafting Science: A Sociohistory of the Quest for the Genetics of Cancer Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  54. Funk RJ, Owen-Smith J. 2016. A dynamic network measure of technological change. Manag. Sci. In press. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2366 [Google Scholar]
  55. Galison P. 2003. The collective author. Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science M Biagioli, P Galison 325–58 New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  56. Ghosh J, Kshitij A, Kadyan S. 2015. Functional information characteristics of large-scale research collaboration: network measures and implications. Scientometrics 102:1207–39 [Google Scholar]
  57. Gieryn TF. 1978. Problem retention and problem change in science. Sociol. Inq. 48:96–115 [Google Scholar]
  58. Greene M. 2007. The demise of the lone author. Nature 450:1165 [Google Scholar]
  59. Guetzkow J, Lamont M, Mallard G. 2004. What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences?. Am. Sociol. Rev. 69:190–212 [Google Scholar]
  60. Guimerà R, Uzzi B, Spiro J, Amaral LAN. 2005. Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 308:697–702 [Google Scholar]
  61. Hackett EJ. 2005. Essential tensions: identity, control, and risk in research. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35:787–826 [Google Scholar]
  62. Hackett EJ, Conz D, Parker J, Bashford J, DeLay S. 2004. Tokamaks and turbulence: research ensembles, policy and technoscientific work. Res. Policy 33:5747–67 [Google Scholar]
  63. Hackett EJ, Rhoten D. 2009. The snowbird charrette: integrative interdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research design. Minerva: Rev. Sci. Learn. Policy 47:407–40 [Google Scholar]
  64. Hagstrom WO. 1964. Traditional and modern forms of scientific teamwork. Adm. Sci. Q. 9:241–63 [Google Scholar]
  65. Hampton SE, Parker JN. 2011. Collaboration and productivity in scientific synthesis. BioScience 61:900–10 [Google Scholar]
  66. Hara N, Solomon P, Kim S-L, Sonnenwald DH. 2003. An emerging view of scientific collaboration. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 54:952–65 [Google Scholar]
  67. Hargadon AB. 2002. Brokering knowledge: linking learning and innovation. Res. Organ. Behav. 24:41–85 [Google Scholar]
  68. Heffner AG. 1979. Authorship recognition of subordinates in collaborative research. Soc. Stud. Sci. 9:377–84 [Google Scholar]
  69. Hsiehchen D, Espinoza M, Hsieh A. 2015. Multinational teams and diseconomies of scale in collaborative research. Sci. Adv. 1:8e1500211 [Google Scholar]
  70. Hu Z, Chen C, Liu Z. 2014. How are collaboration and productivity correlated at various career stages of scientists?. Scientometrics 101:1553–64 [Google Scholar]
  71. Hudson J. 1996. Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. J. Econ. Perspect. 10:153–58 [Google Scholar]
  72. Hull D. 1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Developments of Science Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  73. Hunter L, Leahey E. 2008. Collaborative research in sociology: trends and contributing factors. Am. Sociol. 39:290–306 [Google Scholar]
  74. Inoue H, Liu Y-Y. 2015. Revealing the intricate effect of collaboration on innovation. PLOS ONE 10e0121973 [Google Scholar]
  75. Jacobs JA, Frickel S. 2009. Interdisciplinarity: a critical assessment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 35:43–65 [Google Scholar]
  76. Jeong S, Choi JY. 2015. Collaborative research for academic knowledge creation: how team characteristics, motivation, and processes influence research impact. Sci. Public Policy 42:4460–73 [Google Scholar]
  77. Jeong S, Choi JY, Kim J-Y. 2014. On the drivers of international collaboration: the impact of informal communication, motivation, and research resources. Sci. Public Policy 41:4520–31 [Google Scholar]
  78. Jones BF, Wuchty S, Uzzi B. 2008. Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science 322:1259–62 [Google Scholar]
  79. Kabo FW, Cotton-Nessler N, Hwang Y, Levenstein MC, Owen-Smith J. 2014. Proximity effects on the dynamics and outcomes of scientific collaborations. Res. Policy 43:1469–85 [Google Scholar]
  80. Katz JS, Martin BR. 1997. What is research collaboration?. Res. Policy 26:1–18 [Google Scholar]
  81. Kennedy D. 2003. Multiple authors, multiple problems. Science 301:733 [Google Scholar]
  82. Knorr Cetina K. 1980. The scientist as an analogical reasoner. The Social Process of Scientific Investigation K Knorr-Cetina, RG Krohn, R Whitley 183–208 Boston, MA: Kluwer [Google Scholar]
  83. Knorr Cetina K. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  84. Kyvik S, Teigen M. 1996. Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 21:54–71 [Google Scholar]
  85. Lamont M. 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  86. Larivière V, Haustein S, Börner K. 2015a. Long-distance interdisciplinarity leads to higher scientific impact. PLOS ONE 10:e0122565 [Google Scholar]
  87. Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR. 2015b. Global gender disparities in science. Nature 504:211–13 [Google Scholar]
  88. Leahey E. 2006. Gender differences in productivity: research specialization as a missing link. Gender Soc. 20:754–80 [Google Scholar]
  89. Leahey E. 2007. Convergence and confidentiality? Limits to the implementation of mixed methodology. Soc. Sci. Res. 36:149–58 [Google Scholar]
  90. Leahey E, Beckman C, Stanko T. 2015. Prominent but less productive: the impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists' research. arXiv:1510.06802 [cs.DL]
  91. Leahey E, Moody J. 2014. Sociological innovation through subfield integration. Soc. Curr. 1:228–56 [Google Scholar]
  92. Leahey E, Reikowsky R. 2008. Research specialization and collaboration patterns in sociology. Soc. Stud. Sci. 38:425–40 [Google Scholar]
  93. Lee S, Bozeman B. 2005. The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35:673–702 [Google Scholar]
  94. Lee Y-N, Walsh JP, Wang J. 2015. Creativity in scientific teams: unpacking novelty and impact. Res. Policy 44:684–97 [Google Scholar]
  95. Lewis JM, Ross S, Holden T. 2012. The how and why of academic collaboration: disciplinary differences and policy implications. High. Educ. 64:693–708 [Google Scholar]
  96. Li D. 2016. Expertise vs. bias in evaluation: evidence from the NIH. Work. Pap., Harvard Bus. Sch. [Google Scholar]
  97. Long JS, McGinnis R. 1981. Organizational context and scientific productivity. Am. Soc. Rev. 46:422–42 [Google Scholar]
  98. Luo XR, Koput KW, Powell WW. 2009. Intellectual capital or signal? The effects of scientists on alliance formation in knowledge-intensive industries. Res. Policy 38:1313–25 [Google Scholar]
  99. March JG. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2:71–87 [Google Scholar]
  100. McBee DJ, Leahey E. 2016. New directions in interdisciplinary training: trials and tribulations. Investigating Interdisciplinary Research: Theory and Practice Across Disciplines S Frickel, B Prainsack, M Albert New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  101. Melin G. 2000. Pragmatism and self-organization: research collaboration on the individual level. Res. Policy 29:31–40 [Google Scholar]
  102. Merton RK. 1973a. Priorities in scientific discovery. The Sociology of Science RK Merton 286–324 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  103. Merton RK. 1973b (1963). The ambivalence of scientists. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations NW Storer 381–412 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  104. Milojević S. 2014. Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution. PNAS 111:3984–89 [Google Scholar]
  105. Moody J. 2004. The structure of a social science collaboration network: disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. Am. Sociol. Rev. 69:213–38 [Google Scholar]
  106. Mullins NC. 1983. Theories and theory groups revisited. Sociol. Theory 1:319–37 [Google Scholar]
  107. Murray F. 2010. The oncomouse that roared: hybrid exchange strategies as a source of distinction at the boundary of overlapping institutions. Am. J. Sociol. 116:341–88 [Google Scholar]
  108. Natl. Acad. Sci., Natl. Acad. Eng., Inst. Med 2005. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  109. Natl. Sci. Found 2007. Research and development bolsters U.S. economic growth. NSF Press Release #07-129, Oct. 1 [Google Scholar]
  110. Nelson B. 2011. Seeking the right toolkit. Nature 476:115–17 [Google Scholar]
  111. Newman MEJ. 2001. The structure of scientific collaboration networks. PNAS 98:404–09 [Google Scholar]
  112. O'Brien TL. 2012. Change in academic coauthorship, 1953–2003. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 37:210–34 [Google Scholar]
  113. Olsen GM, Olsen JS. 2000. Distance matters. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 15:139–78 [Google Scholar]
  114. Owen-Smith J. 2005a. Dockets, deals, and sagas: commensuration and the rationalization of experience in university licensing. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35:69–97 [Google Scholar]
  115. Owen-Smith J. 2005b. Trends and transitions in the institutional environment for public and private science. High. Educ. 49:91–117 [Google Scholar]
  116. Page SE. 2007. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  117. Parker JN, Hackett EJ. 2012. Hot spots and hot moments in scientific collaborations and social movements. Am. Sociol. Rev. 77:21–44 [Google Scholar]
  118. Parker JN, Penders B, Vermeulen N. 2010. Collaboration in the New Life Sciences Surrey, UK: Ashgate [Google Scholar]
  119. Poincaré H. 1952 (1908). Mathematical creation. The Creative Process B Ghiselin 23–31 Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  120. Porter AL, Cohen AS, Roessner JD, Perreault M. 2007. Measuring research interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics 72:117–47 [Google Scholar]
  121. Powell WW, Koput KW, Smith-Doerr L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Adm. Sci. Q. 41:116–45 [Google Scholar]
  122. Powell WW, White DR, Koput KW, Jason OS. 2005. Network dynamics and field evolution: the growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. Am. J. Sociol. 110:1132–205 [Google Scholar]
  123. Presser S. 1980. Collaboration and the quality of research. Soc. Stud. Sci. 10:95–101 [Google Scholar]
  124. Qin J, Lancaster FW, Allen B. 1997. Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. 48:10893–916 [Google Scholar]
  125. Rawlings CM, McFarland DA. 2011. Influence flows in the academy: using affiliation networks to assess peer effects among researchers. Soc. Sci. Res. 40:1001–17 [Google Scholar]
  126. Rawlings CM, McFarland DA, Dahlander L, Wang D. 2015. Streams of thought: knowledge flows and intellectual cohesion in a multidisciplinary era. Soc. Forces 93:41687–722 [Google Scholar]
  127. Reagans R, McEvily B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Adm. Sci. Q. 48:240–67 [Google Scholar]
  128. Rhoten D, Parker A. 2004. Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary path. Science 306:2046 [Google Scholar]
  129. CM. 2008. “Interdisciplinary strategies” in US research universities. High. Educ. 55:537–52 [Google Scholar]
  130. Shapin S. 1994. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  131. Shi X, Adamic LA, Tseng BL, Clarkson GS. 2009. The impact of boundary spanning scholarly publications and patents. PLOS ONE 4:e6547 [Google Scholar]
  132. Shrum W, Genuth J, Chompalov I. 2007. Structures of Scientific Collaboration Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  133. Singh J, Fleming L. 2010. Lone inventors as sources of breakthroughs: myth or reality?. Manag. Sci. 56:41–56 [Google Scholar]
  134. Smith-Doerr L, Vardi I. 2015. Mind the gap: formal ethics policies and chemical scientists' everyday practices in academia and industry. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 40:176–98 [Google Scholar]
  135. Stokols D, Hall KL, Taylor BK, Moser RP. 2008. The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. Am. J. Prev. Med. 35:S77–89 [Google Scholar]
  136. Stuart TE, Ding WW. 2006. When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. Am. J. Sociol. 112:97–144 [Google Scholar]
  137. Thorsteinsdóttir OH. 2000. External research collaboration in two small science systems. Scientometrics 49:145–60 [Google Scholar]
  138. Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B. 2013. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342:468–72 [Google Scholar]
  139. Walsh JP, Bayma T. 1996. Computer network and scientific work. Soc. Stud. Sci. 26:661–703 [Google Scholar]
  140. Wang J, Hicks D. 2015. Scientific teams: self-assembly, fluidness, and interdependence. J. Informetr. 9:197–207 [Google Scholar]
  141. Weitzman ML. 1998. Recombinant growth. Q. J. Econ. 113:331–60 [Google Scholar]
  142. West JD, Jacquet J, King MM, Correll SJ, Bergstrom CT. 2013. The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLOS ONE 8:e66212 [Google Scholar]
  143. Whitley R. 2000. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  144. Wray KB. 2002. The epistemic significance of collaborative research. Philos. Sci. 69:150–68 [Google Scholar]
  145. Wray KB. 2005. Rethinking scientific specialization. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35:151–64 [Google Scholar]
  146. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316:1036–39 [Google Scholar]
  147. Xie Y. 2014. “Undemocracy”: inequalities in science. Science 344:809–10 [Google Scholar]
  148. Xie Y, Killewald A. 2012. Is American Science in Decline? Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  149. Xie Y, Zhang C, Lai Q. 2014. China's rise as a major contributor to science and technology. PNAS 111:9437–42 [Google Scholar]
  150. Youtie J, Bozeman B. 2014. Social dynamics of research collaboration: norms, practices, and ethical issues in determining co-authorship rights. Scientometrics 101:953–62 [Google Scholar]
  151. Zucker LG, Darby MR. 1996. Star scientists and institutional transformation: patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. PNAS 93:12709–16 [Google Scholar]
  152. Zucker LG, Darby MR, Armstrong JS. 2002. Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Manag. Sci. 48:138–53 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error