What makes a successful team? John Whitfield looks at research that uses massive online databases and network analysis to come up with some rules of thumb for productive collaborations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F. & Uzzi, B. Science 316, 1036–1039 (2007).
Cummings, J. N. & Kiesler, S. Proc. CSCW'08 (in the press).
Palla, G., Barabási, A.-L. & Vicsek, T. Nature 446, 664–667 (2007).
Guimerà, R., Uzzi, B., Spira, J. & Amaral, L. A. N. Science 308, 697–702 (2005).
Uzzi, B. J. Phys. A. 41, 224023 (2008).
Newman, M. E. J. Preprint at arXiv:0809.0522v1 (2008).
Börner, K., Penumarthy, S., Meiss, M. & Ke, W. Scientometrics 68, 415–426 (2006).
Price, Derek J. de Solla Little Science, Big Science (Columbia Univ. Press, 1963).
Abt, H. A. Scientometrics 73, 353–358 (2007).
Friedman, M. Nature 454, 209–212 (2008).
Related links
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Whitfield, J. Collaboration: Group theory. Nature 455, 720–723 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/455720a
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/455720a
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Interplay between success and patterns of human collaboration: case study of a Thai Research Institute
Scientific Reports (2021)
-
Sprint to work: A novel model for team science collaboration in academic medicine
Perspectives on Medical Education (2018)
-
Protocol for a thematic synthesis to identify key themes and messages from a palliative care research network
BMC Research Notes (2016)
-
Assortativity and leadership emerge from anti-preferential attachment in heterogeneous networks
Scientific Reports (2016)
-
The first cut is the deepest: repeated interactions of coauthorship and academic productivity in Nobel laureate teams
Scientometrics (2016)