Team science: building, nurturing, and expanding research collaborations.

Science is a collaborative endeavor, and the importance of collaborations across disciplines and boundaries is becoming clearer with the advent of new technologies. This article focuses on key aspects of initiating and sustaining new collaborations, and expanding from bilateral to multilateral efforts to create major impact through team science.

Neurodevelopmental copy-number variants: A roadmap to improving outcomes by uniting patient advocates, researchers, and clinicians for collective impact.

Copy-number variants and structural variants (CNVs/SVs) drive many neurodevelopmental-related disorders. While many neurodevelopmental-related CNVs/SVs give rise to complex phenotypes, the overlap in phenotypic presentation between independent CNVs can be extensive and provides a motivation for shared approaches. This confluence at the level of clinical phenotype implies convergence in at least some aspects of the underlying genomic mechanisms. With this perspective, our Commission on Novel Technologies for Neurodevelopmental CNVs asserts that the time has arrived to approach neurodevelopmental-related CNVs/SVs as a class of disorders that can be identified, investigated, and treated on the basis of shared mechanisms and/or pathways (e.g., molecular, neurological, or developmental). To identify common etiologic mechanisms among uncommon neurodevelopmental-related disorders and to potentially identify common therapies, it is paramount for teams of scientists, clinicians, and patients to unite their efforts. We bring forward novel, collaborative, and integrative strategies to translational CNV/SV research that engages diverse stakeholders to help expedite therapeutic outcomes. We articulate a clear vision for piloted roadmap strategies to reduce patient/caregiver burden and redundancies, increase efficiency, avoid siloed data, and accelerate translational discovery across CNV/SV-based syndromes.

Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas.

Science's changing demographics raise new questions about research team diversity and research outcomes. We study mixed-gender research teams, examining 6.6 million papers published across the medical sciences since 2000 and establishing several core findings. First, the fraction of publications by mixed-gender teams has grown rapidly, yet mixed-gender teams continue to be underrepresented compared to the expectations of a null model. Second, despite their underrepresentation, the publications of mixed-gender teams are substantially more novel and impactful than the publications of same-gender teams of equivalent size. Third, the greater the gender balance on a team, the better the team scores on these performance measures. Fourth, these patterns generalize across medical subfields. Finally, the novelty and impact advantages seen with mixed-gender teams persist when considering numerous controls and potential related features, including fixed effects for the individual researchers, team structures, and network positioning, suggesting that a team's gender balance is an underrecognized yet powerful correlate of novel and impactful scientific discoveries.

The journey from bench to bedside-it takes a science village.

I was fortunate enough to start my career at what was the dawn of modern-day molecular biology and to apply it to an important health problem. While my early work focused on fundamental science, the desire to understand human disease better and to find practical applications for research discoveries resulted, over the following decades, in creating a stream of translational research directed specifically toward epithelial cancers. This could only have been possible through multiple collaborations. This type of team science would eventually become a hallmark of my career. With the development of higher throughput molecular techniques, the pace of research and discovery has quickened, and the concept of personalized medicine based on genomics is now coming to fruition. I hope my legacy will not just reflect my published works, but will also include the impact I have had on the development of the next generation of scientists and clinician scientists who inspired me with their dedication, knowledge, and enthusiasm.

Where the 'bad' and the 'good' go: A multi-lab direct replication report of Casasanto (2009, Experiment 1).

Casasanto (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 351-367, 2009) conceptualised the body-specificity hypothesis by empirically finding that right-handed people tend to associate a positive valence with the right side and a negative valence with the left side, whilst left-handed people tend to associate a positive valence with the left side and negative valence with the right side. Thus, this was the first paper that showed a body-specific space-valence mapping. These highly influential findings led to a substantial body of research and follow-up studies, which could confirm the original findings on a conceptual level. However, direct replications of the original study are scarce. Against this backdrop and given the replication crisis in psychology, we conducted a direct replication of Casasanto's original study with 2,222 participants from 12 countries to examine the aforementioned effects in general and also in a cross-cultural comparison. Our results support Casasanto's findings that right-handed people associate the right side with positivity and the left side with negativity and vice versa for left-handers.

Next steps after airing disagreement on a scientific issue with policy implications: a meta-analysis, multi-lab replication and adversarial collaboration.

Canadian policymakers are interested in determining whether farmed Atlantic salmon, frequently infected with Piscine orthoreovirus (PRV), may threaten wild salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest. A relevant work has been published in BMC Biology by Polinksi and colleagues, but their conclusion that PRV has a negligible impact on the energy expenditure and respiratory performance of sockeye salmon is disputed by Mordecai and colleagues, whose re-analysis is presented in a correspondence article. So, what is the true effect and what should follow this unresolved dispute? We suggest a 'registered multi-lab replication with adversaries'.

Examining how study teams manage different viewpoints and priorities in patient-centered outcomes research: Results of an embedded multiple case study.

INTRODUCTION: Limited evidence exists about which patient and stakeholder engagement practices support or hinder study teams as they negotiate different viewpoints in decisions about the design and conduct of patient-centered outcomes research. METHODS: We applied a multiple-embedded descriptive case study design for six studies funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). We interviewed 32 researchers and stakeholder partners, including patients, caregivers and clinicians, and reviewed documents related to each study (e.g., publications, and progress reports submitted to PCORI). FINDINGS: Overall, researchers reported that incorporating different viewpoints was a strength or opportunity to learn rather than something to be avoided or dreaded. Across cases, different viewpoints and priorities, often related to ethical or pragmatic considerations, emerged between researchers and stakeholders, between stakeholder groups (e.g., patients and clinicians) or within groups (e.g., amongst researchers). Examples of navigating different viewpoints arose across study phases. The length of time to resolve issues depended on how strongly people disagreed and the perceived importance or impact of decisions on the study. All cases used collaborative decision-making approaches, often described as consensus, throughout the study. Interviewees described consensus as using negotiation, compromise or working towards an agreeable decision. To encourage consensus, cases actively facilitated group discussions with an openness to diverse opinions, remained flexible and open to trying new things, referenced a ground rule or common goal and delegated decisions to partners or smaller workgroups. When viewpoints were not easily resolved, cases used different approaches to reach final decisions while maintaining relationships with partners, such as elevating decisions to leadership or agreeing to test out an approach. No one engagement structure (e.g., advisory group, coinvestigator) stood out as better able to manage different viewpoints. Teams adjusted engagement structures and behaviours to facilitate an overall culture of inclusion and respect. Partners acknowledged the intentional efforts of researchers to incorporate their perspectives, navigate challenges and communicate the value of partner input. CONCLUSION: By using collaborative decision-making in the early stages and throughout the study, researchers built trust with partners so that when decisions were difficult to resolve, partners still felt listened to and that their input mattered. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of the PCORI Patient Engagement Advisory Panel in 2019-2020 provided input into the design of the study, including the research questions and approaches to data collection and analysis.

Barriers and facilitators of conducting research with team science approach: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The present review aimed to systematically identify and classify barriers and facilitators of conducting research with a team science approach. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Emerald, and ProQuest databases were searched for primary research studies conducted using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. Studies examining barriers and facilitators of research with a team science approach were included in search. Two independent reviewers screened the texts, extracted and coded the data. Quality assessment was performed for all 35 included articles. The identified barriers and facilitators were categorized within Human, Organization, and Technology model. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies from 9,381 articles met the inclusion criteria, from which 42 barriers and 148 facilitators were identified. Human barriers were characteristics of the researchers, teaming skills, and time. We consider Human facilitators across nine sub-themes as follows: characteristics of the researchers, roles, goals, communication, trust, conflict, disciplinary distances, academic rank, and collaboration experience. The barriers related to organization were institutional policies, team science integration, and funding. Organizational facilitators were as follows: team science skills training, institutional policies, and evaluation. Facilitators in the field of technology included virtual readiness and data management, and the technology barriers were complexity of techniques and privacy issues. CONCLUSIONS: We identified major barriers and facilitators for conducting research with team science approach. The findings have important connotations for ongoing and future implementation of this intervention strategy in research. The analysis of this review provides evidence to inform policy-makers, funding providers, researchers, and students on the existing barriers and facilitators of team science research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO database (PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021278704).

Cancer and COVID-19 research studies with team science: a bibliometric study.

Team science refers to research initiatives considered in collaboration with scientists from different disciplines or fields. This paper presents a bibliometric analysis for visualization of global research activity concerning the combination of cancer and the COVID-19 pandemic using a team science approach. A bibliometric study was implemented using Web of Science from 2019 to 2021. We analyzed citations to identify description and citations analysis of results, most prolific countries, international research collaboration, most prolific institutions, research areas, most cited papers, and most productive journals. The preliminary data of 2,313 studies that adopted a team science approach were recorded and analyzed. Team science is becoming progressively popular in cancer research. The United States was the most active country, followed by Italy and China. The United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy had the highest level of cooperation with other countries. The most prolific institution was Harvard University, followed by University of London and the University of Texas System. Head and Neck Journal for the Sciences and Specialties of the Head and Neck, Frontiers in Oncology, and eCancerMedicalScience were the most productive journals. Governments, organizations, policymakers, and researchers should pay attention to team science approach at times of disasters such as cancer and COVID-19 to achieve the best strategies for controlling cancer that is currently a world problem.

Reproducibility in the absence of selective reporting: An illustration from large-scale brain asymmetry research.

The problem of poor reproducibility of scientific findings has received much attention over recent years, in a variety of fields including psychology and neuroscience. The problem has been partly attributed to publication bias and unwanted practices such as p-hacking. Low statistical power in individual studies is also understood to be an important factor. In a recent multisite collaborative study, we mapped brain anatomical left-right asymmetries for regional measures of surface area and cortical thickness, in 99 MRI datasets from around the world, for a total of over 17,000 participants. In the present study, we revisited these hemispheric effects from the perspective of reproducibility. Within each dataset, we considered that an effect had been reproduced when it matched the meta-analytic effect from the 98 other datasets, in terms of effect direction and significance threshold. In this sense, the results within each dataset were viewed as coming from separate studies in an "ideal publishing environment," that is, free from selective reporting and p hacking. We found an average reproducibility rate of 63.2% (SD = 22.9%, min = 22.2%, max = 97.0%). As expected, reproducibility was higher for larger effects and in larger datasets. Reproducibility was not obviously related to the age of participants, scanner field strength, FreeSurfer software version, cortical regional measurement reliability, or regional size. These findings constitute an empirical illustration of reproducibility in the absence of publication bias or p hacking, when assessing realistic biological effects in heterogeneous neuroscience data, and given typically-used sample sizes.

Decoding team and individual impact in science and invention.

Scientists and inventors increasingly work in teams, raising fundamental questions about the nature of team production and making individual assessment increasingly difficult. Here we present a method for describing individual and team citation impact that both is computationally feasible and can be applied in standard, wide-scale databases. We track individuals across collaboration networks to define an individual citation index and examine outcomes when each individual works alone or in teams. Studying 24 million research articles and 3.9 million US patents, we find a substantial impact advantage of teamwork over solo work. However, this advantage declines as differences between the team members' individual citation indices grow. Team impact is predicted more by the lower-citation rather than the higher-citation team members, typically centering near the harmonic average of the individual citation indices. Consistent with this finding, teams tend to assemble among individuals with similar citation impact in all fields of science and patenting. In assessing individuals, our index, which accounts for each coauthor, is shown to have substantial advantages over existing measures. First, it more accurately predicts out-of-sample paper and patent outcomes. Second, it more accurately characterizes which scholars are elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Overall, the methodology uncovers universal regularities that inform team organization while also providing a tool for individual evaluation in the team production era.

Lived Experiences of an Elite Performance Management Team Through Injury Rehabilitation: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Injury is a common and challenging experience for many athletes, and return-to-sport outcomes have been persistently poor despite advancements in research and practice. To ameliorate this challenge and to bridge a gap that exists in the sport injury literature between theoretical conceptualization and intervention design, research is needed to explore team-based approaches to professional practice. The current study aimed to begin this work through exploration of a single performance management team (PMT) through 2 injury and rehabilitation cases leading into and across the 2014 Olympic Winter Games. DESIGN: Qualitative, interpretative phenomenological analysis. METHOD: Interviews were conducted with the 5 members of the PMT (coach, physiotherapist, sport psychology consultant, case manager, and athlete) involved in both injury cases. Lower-order and higher order themes were identified and interpreted through the extent literature. RESULTS: Results indicate that 3 higher order themes interacted to impact the lived experiences of the PMT members across the 2 injury cases. Participants described the sociocultural context that surrounded the team, the individual struggles they faced, and the functioning of the team as the primary contributors to their lived experiences as well as observed rehabilitation outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this study mirror previous research in team science within the general health care domain, and prompt ongoing exploration of how to improve the experiences for PMT members as well as rehabilitation and return-to-sport outcomes for athletes.

Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Criteria: Does It Matter?

University faculty are called upon to address complex, contemporary problems using interdisciplinary approaches. But do appointment, reappointment, promotion, and tenure (ARPT) criteria reflect and reward this fundamental change in the nature of scholarly inquiry? We conducted a content analysis of ARPT criteria at one university to determine how interdisciplinary work is valued across disciplines and over time. We found noteworthy differences between colleges and disciplines: generally, creative disciplines placed higher value on individual contributions while the sciences supported interdisciplinary work. The emphasis on interdisciplinary work over time increased in only a few disciplines, as criteria became more current.

Team Science in Precision Medicine: Study of Coleadership and Coauthorship Across Health Organizations.

BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary collaborations bring lots of benefits to researchers in multiple areas, including precision medicine. OBJECTIVE: This viewpoint aims at studying how cross-institution team science would affect the development of precision medicine. METHODS: Publications of organizations on the eHealth Catalogue of Activities were collected in 2015 and 2017. The significance of the correlation between coleadership and coauthorship among different organizations was calculated using the Pearson chi-square test of independence. Other nonparametric tests examined whether organizations with coleaders publish more and better papers than organizations without coleaders. RESULTS: A total of 374 publications from 69 organizations were analyzed in 2015, and 7064 papers from 87 organizations were analyzed in 2017. Organizations with coleadership published more papers (P<.001, 2015 and 2017), which received higher citations (Z=-13.547, P<.001, 2017), compared to those without coleadership. Organizations with coleaders tended to publish papers together (P<.001, 2015 and 2017). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that organizations in the field of precision medicine could greatly benefit from institutional-level team science. As a result, stronger collaboration is recommended.

Cultivating Metacognition in Each of Us: Thinking About "Thinking" in Interdisciplinary Disaster Research.

Although there is an emerging literature on interdisciplinary disaster research (IDR), one of the overlooked aspects relates to our thinking itself: how to actively think about our thinking-metacognition-while embarking on our interdisciplinary journeys. This article argues that metacognition has an instrumental value both for IDR projects and for individual researchers involved in IDR. For IDR projects, metacognition can help: (1)overcome disciplinary barriers in IDR by revealing cognitive abilities and inabilities for each team member through identifying what is hindering or enabling individuals and the group to transcend disciplinary boundaries toward true integration across the disciplines; (2)deal with "wicked" problems that characterize disaster contexts in a more effective and creative manner; (3)oversee team functioning; and (4)monitor and evaluate progress toward meeting project goals and objectives. For individual researchers, metacognition can help them grow intellectually, and understand the fallacies and limitations in their thinking. It can also encourage them to live an authentic and unified life as an individual. The article concludes with guidance on how individual researchers, principal investigators of IDR projects, and institutions such as universities and funding agencies can cultivate metacognition. To our knowledge, this is the first article that introduces metacognition as a tool for enhancing our thinking on IDR.

A Decision-Centered Method to Evaluate Natural Hazards Decision Aids by Interdisciplinary Research Teams.

There is a growing number of decision aids made available to the general public by those working on hazard and disaster management. When based on high-quality scientific studies across disciplines and designed to provide a high level of usability and trust, decision aids become more likely to improve the quality of hazard risk management and response decisions. Interdisciplinary teams have a vital role to play in this process, ensuring the scientific validity and effectiveness of a decision aid across the physical science, social science, and engineering dimensions of hazard awareness, option identification, and the decisions made by individuals and communities. Often, these aids are not evaluated before being widely distributed, which could improve their impact, due to a lack of dedicated resources and guidance on how to systematically do so. In this Perspective, we present a decision-centered method for evaluating the impact of hazard decision aids on decisionmaker preferences and choice during the design and development phase, drawing from the social and behavioral sciences and a value of information framework to inform the content, complexity, format, and overall evaluation of the decision aid. The first step involves quantifying the added value of the information contained in the decision aid. The second involves identifying the extent to which the decision aid is usable. Our method can be applied to a variety of hazards and disasters, and will allow interdisciplinary teams to more effectively evaluate the extent to which an aid can inform and improve decision making.

Artists on the Research Team: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Team Science, Research Rigor, and Creative Dialogue.

In an arts in public health research team, artists may be undervalued as key research collaborators because of the difficulties in skillful integration of experts who possess not only different bodies of knowledge but also different ways of examining and valuing the world. Under the stewardship of two Rhode Island state agencies, an innovative research-driven enterprise, comprising researchers, clinicians, and community artists, was brought together to integrate arts-based interventions into statewide public health policy and practice. Here, we examine our work with the Rhode Island Arts and Health Advisory Group as a case study to illuminate our experiences in collaborating with artists on public health policy and practice research. Using existing frameworks from the literature, we define the attributes of, and challenges to, successful research collaborations and identify from our work how these apply to interdisciplinary collaborations between artists and public health practitioners. To support others working at the nexus of arts in public health, we include key experiences that were specific to the engagement of artists in research teams.

Sensor-based proximity metrics for team research. A validation study across three organizational contexts.

Wearable sensors are becoming increasingly popular in organizational research. Although validation studies that examine sensor data in conjunction with established social and psychological constructs are becoming more frequent, they are usually limited for two reasons: first, most validation studies are carried out under laboratory settings. Only a handful of studies have been carried out in real-world organizational environments. Second, for those studies carried out in field settings, reported findings are derived from a single case only, thus seriously limiting the possibility of studying the influence of contextual factors on sensor-based measurements. This article presents a validation study of expressive and instrumental ties across nine relatively small R&D teams. The convergent validity of Bluetooth (BT) detections is reported for friendship and advice-seeking ties under three organizational contexts: research labs, private companies, and university-based teams. Results show that, in general, BT detections correlated strongly with self-reported measurements. However, the organizational context affects both the strength of the observed correlation and its direction. Whereas advice-seeking ties generally occur in close spatial proximity and are best identified in university environments, friendship relationships occur at a greater spatial distance, especially in research labs. We conclude with recommendations for fine-tuning the validity of sensor measurements by carefully examining the opportunities for organizational embedding in relation to the research question and collecting complementary data through mixed-method research designs.

Improving philosophical dialogue interventions to better resolve problematic value pluralism in collaborative environmental science.

Environmental problems often outstrip the abilities of any single scientist to understand, much less address them. As a result, collaborations within, across, and beyond the environmental sciences are an increasingly important part of the environmental science landscape. Here, we explore an insufficiently recognized and particularly challenging barrier to collaborative environmental science: value pluralism, the presence of non-trivial differences in the values that collaborators bring to bear on project decisions. We argue that resolving the obstacles posed by value pluralism to collaborative environmental science requires detecting and coordinating the underlying problematic value differences. We identify five ways that a team might coordinate their problematic value differences and argue that, whichever mode is adopted, it ought to be governed by participatory virtues, pragmatic resolve, and moral concern. Relying on our experiences with the Toolbox Dialogue Initiative, as well as with other dialogical approaches that support team inquiry, we defend the claim that philosophical dialogue among collaborators can go a long way towards helping teams of environmental scientists and fellow travelers detect their problematic value differences. Where dialogical approaches fare less well is in helping teams coordinate these differences. We close by describing several principles for augmenting philosophical dialogue with other methods, and we list several of these methods in an appendix with brief descriptions and links for further learning. Overall, the article makes three main contributions to the research collaboration and values in science literatures: (1) It deepens our understanding of problematic value pluralism in team science; (2) It provides actionable guidance and methods for improving values-oriented philosophical dialogue interventions; and (3) It demonstrates one way of doing engaged philosophy.

Proceedings from the Neurotherapeutics Symposium on Neurological Emergencies: Shaping the Future of Neurocritical Care.

Effective treatment options for patients with life-threatening neurological disorders are limited. To address this unmet need, high-impact translational research is essential for the advancement and development of novel therapeutic approaches in neurocritical care. "The Neurotherapeutics Symposium 2019-Neurological Emergencies" conference, held in Rochester, New York, in June 2019, was designed to accelerate translation of neurocritical care research via transdisciplinary team science and diversity enhancement. Diversity excellence in the neuroscience workforce brings innovative and creative perspectives, and team science broadens the scientific approach by incorporating views from multiple stakeholders. Both are essential components needed to address complex scientific questions. Under represented minorities and women were involved in the organization of the conference and accounted for 30-40% of speakers, moderators, and attendees. Participants represented a diverse group of stakeholders committed to translational research. Topics discussed at the conference included acute ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes, neurogenic respiratory dysregulation, seizures and status epilepticus, brain telemetry, neuroprognostication, disorders of consciousness, and multimodal monitoring. In these proceedings, we summarize the topics covered at the conference and suggest the groundwork for future high-yield research in neurologic emergencies.