Collaboration and Productivity in Scientific Synthesis
Abstract
Scientific synthesis has transformed ecological research and presents opportunities for advancements across the sciences; to date, however, little is known about the antecedents of success in synthesis. Building on findings from 10 years of detailed research on social interactions in synthesis groups at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, we demonstrated with large-scale quantitative analyses that face-to-face interaction has been vital to success in synthesis groups, boosting the production of peer-reviewed publications. But it has been about more than just meeting; the importance of resident scientists at synthesis centers was also evident, in that including synthesis-center residents in geographically distributed working groups further increased productivity. Moreover, multi-institutional collaboration, normally detrimental to productivity, was positively associated with productivity in this stimulating environment. Finally, participation in synthesis groups significantly increased scientists' collaborative propensity and visibility, positively affecting scientific careers and potentially increasing the capacity of the scientific community to leverage synthesis for enhanced scientific understanding.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is a paucity of research on how ecological teams work effectively together.
“Despite a paucity of research on how ecological teams work effectively together (but see Hampton and Parker 2011;Parker and Hackett 2012;Pennington et al. 2013)”
From Creating and maintaining high‐performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills (2014) · cites this paper as Hampton and Parker 2011
Face-to-face communication is very important for effective communication and increases the number of peer-reviewed publications produced by ecological synthesis groups.
“Face-to-face communication is very important for effective communication and has been shown to increase the number of peer-reviewed publications produced by ecological synthesis groups (Hampton and Parker 2011).”
From Creating and maintaining high‐performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills (2014) · cites this paper as Hampton and Parker 2011
Cites
Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000) · Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1523_4 · Cited by 1,983 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…transmission of tacit knowledge (Polanyi 1966, Bechtel 1993, Collins HM 2001); role and identity formation (Nohria and Eccles 1992); communication (Olson and Olson 2000); and the development of the trust, cohesion, and commitment necessary for catalyzing and motivating intellectual work (Mullins…”
BackgroundCoordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations
Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2007) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.09.001 · Cited by 410 · see citing works
Not by Productivity Alone: How Visibility and Specialization Contribute to Academic Earnings
Leahey, E. (2007) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240707200403 · Cited by 356 · see citing works
Scientific Collaboration on the Internet
(2008) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262151207.001.0001 · Cited by 286 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Collaborations are becoming more widely distributed (Olson et al. 2008), and the attraction of virtual organizations that use cyberinfrastruture to bridge physical distance is evident (Cummings et al. 2008).”
BackgroundKOSTOFF, R. N. (2002) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0937:os]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Intermittent Rivers: A Challenge for Freshwater Ecology
Datry, T., Larned, S. T., & Tockner, K. (2014) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/bit027 · Cited by 743 · see citing works
Situating Ecology as a Big-Data Science: Current Advances, Challenges, and Solutions
Farley, S. S., Dawson, A., Goring, S. J., & Williams, J. W. (2018) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/biy068 · Cited by 331 · see citing works
Cheruvelil, K. S., Soranno, P. A., Weathers, K. C., Hanson, P. C., Goring, S. J., Filstrup, C. T., & Read, E. K. (2014) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/130001 · Cited by 302 · see citing works
Michener, W. K. (2015) · Ecological Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2015.06.010 · Cited by 239 · see citing works
Information systems solutions for environmental sustainability: How can we do more?
University of Illinois Springfield, Gholami, R., Watson, R., University of Georgia, Hasan, H., University of Wollongong, Molla, A., RMIT University, Bjorn-Andersen, N., & School, C. B. (2016) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00435 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Transdisciplinary Research, Transformative Learning, and Transformative Science
Pennington, D. D., Simpson, G. L., McConnell, M. S., Fair, J. M., & Baker, R. J. (2013) · BioScience · doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.9 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Large‐Scale Transdisciplinary Collaboration for Adaptation Research: Challenges and Insights
Cundill, G., Harvey, B., Tebboth, M., Cochrane, L., Currie‐Alder, B., Vincent, K., Lawn, J., Nicholls, R. J., Scodanibbio, L., Prakash, A., et al. (2019) · Global Challenges · doi:10.1002/gch2.201700132 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hampton, S. E., & Parker, J. N.
- Venue
- BioScience
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-11
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 900-910
- ISSN
- 0006-3568 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-3244
- OpenAlex
- W2120720599
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 19.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- BioScience (publishedVersion)
- BioOne Complete (BioOne) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0553768)
- University of California, Santa Barbara
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Keywords
- scientific synthesis, ecological synthesis, research collaboration, productivity, face-to-face interaction, multi-institutional collaboration, peer-reviewed articles, scientific careers, research visibility
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
