Studied the collaboration network of U.S. biotech inventors amongst 1976 and 1995 j.1467-9507.2007.00408.x
and showed that earlier co-authorship relations amongst these researchers increased their likelihood of patent collaboration. Additional, operating previously on a group helps overcome geographic and disciplinary hurdles to future group assembly and influences subsequent collaboration. Collectively, these findings recommend that, within the context of interdisciplinary scientific collaboration, researchers who collaborated in the past are a lot more most likely to collaborate within the future. As a result, we propose: Hypothesis 5 Team members that co-authored in the past are additional likely to collaborate with each other on interdisciplinary teams.J Informetr. Author manuscript; accessible in PMC 2015 January 890334415573001
01.Lungeanu et al.Page2.1.5 Citation relation--The quantity of academic citations is arguably related with larger quality investigation (Aksnes, 2006; Wuchty, et al., 2007). Citation evaluation pnas.1522090112
has frequently served to evaluate how the suggestions and ideas of a publication influenced subsequent study, top to cascades of influence and field advancement (Garfield, 1972; Lambiotte Panzarasa, 2009). PHA-848125
Citing each and every other's publications is often a reflection of team members' expanding familiarity with each other's operate and experience. As outlined by transactive memory investigation, familiarity enhances team understanding by helping members be a lot more aware of "who knows what" on the group (Hollingshead, 1998; Hollingshead Contractor, 2002; Moreland, 1999; Su, Huang, Contractor, 2011; Wegner, 1995) and by helping team builders identify other individuals inside a network who have the necessary knowledge (Monge Contractor, 2003). Thus, we count on researchers that cite other researchers to conveniently identify them as you possibly can collaborators inside the network: Hypothesis six Group members that cited every other's publications in the past are extra probably to collaborate with one another on interdisciplinary teams.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptHypotheses 1 by way of six examine the factors influencing men and women to collaborate with a single a different on interdisciplinary teams. The following section posits mechanisms for the accomplishment of those collaborations. two.2 Achievement of interdisciplinary scientific teams Analysis on intra-organizational learning has examined the aspects that aid teams, groups, and firms to operate far more effectively and proficiently. Low turnover in group membership has been associated with understanding retention, whereas high turnover has been linked with information creation (i.e. innovation) and transfer (Argote Ophir, 2002). Clearly, low and higher turnover in membership has different impacts on efficiency based around the nature of tasks at hand. R D departments, one example is, thrive with higher turnover (Gruenfeld, Martorana, Fan, 2000), when law offices prosper under low turnover simply because the know-how and technologies necessary to operate effectively changes tiny over lengthy periods of time. This paradox about membership also exists in research on scientific collaboration. Around the one particular hand, Wells and Pelz (1966) identified that higher turnover amongst scientists and engineers improved the functionality of research teams. On the other hand, research on transactive memory suggested that it truly is low turnover that aids their performance (e.g., Liang, Moreland, Argote, 1995; Moreland Myaskovsky, 2000). More specifically, research showed that group members are able to specialize by relying on other members a.