Paper detail

Quantifying team chemistry in scientific collaboration

Team chemistry is the holy grail of understanding collaborative human behavior, yet its quantitative understanding remains inconclusive. To reveal the presence and mechanisms of team chemistry in scientific collaboration, we reconstruct the publication histories of 560,689 individual scientists and 1,026,196 duos of scientists. We identify ability discrepancies between teams and their members, enabling us to evaluate team chemistry in a way that is robust against prior experience of collaboration and inherent randomness. Furthermore, our network analysis uncovers a nontrivial modular structure that allows us to predict team chemistry between scientists who have never collaborated before. Research interest is the highest correlated ingredient of team chemistry among six personal characteristics that have been commonly attributed as the keys to successful collaboration, yet the diversity of the characteristics cannot completely explain team chemistry. Our results may lead to unlocking the hidden potential of collaboration by the matching of well-paired scientists.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.