Remote collaboration fuses fewer breakthrough ideas.

Theories of innovation emphasize the role of social networks and teams as facilitators of breakthrough discoveries1-4. Around the world, scientists and inventors are more plentiful and interconnected today than ever before4. However, although there are more people making discoveries, and more ideas that can be reconfigured in new ways, research suggests that new ideas are getting harder to find5,6-contradicting recombinant growth theory7,8. Here we shed light on this apparent puzzle. Analysing 20 million research articles and 4 million patent applications from across the globe over the past half-century, we begin by documenting the rise of remote collaboration across cities, underlining the growing interconnectedness of scientists and inventors globally. We further show that across all fields, periods and team sizes, researchers in these remote teams are consistently less likely to make breakthrough discoveries relative to their on-site counterparts. Creating a dataset that allows us to explore the division of labour in knowledge production within teams and across space, we find that among distributed team members, collaboration centres on late-stage, technical tasks involving more codified knowledge. Yet they are less likely to join forces in conceptual tasks-such as conceiving new ideas and designing research-when knowledge is tacit9. We conclude that despite striking improvements in digital technology in recent years, remote teams are less likely to integrate the knowledge of their members to produce new, disruptive ideas.

Open Science and Intervention Research: a Program Developer's and Researcher's Perspective on Issues and Concerns.

Open Science practices bear great promise for making research in general more reproducible and transparent, and these goals are very important for preventive intervention research. From my perspective as a program co-developer, I note potential concerns and issues of how open science practices can be used in intervention research. Key issues considered are in the realms of pre-registration (making pre-registration a living document; providing rewards for hypothesis-generating research, in addition to hypothesis-testing research), data archiving (resources for data archiving of large datasets; ethical issues related to need for strong de-identification), and research materials (intervention manuals and materials, and characteristics, training and supervision of intervention staff). The paper focuses on easier-to-address and considerably harder-to-address issues and concerns in these three areas.