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.

Creating SPACE to evolve academic assessment.

Universities and research institutions have to assess individuals when making decisions about hiring, promotion and tenure, but there are concerns that such assessments are overly reliant on metrics and proxy measures of research quality that overlook important factors such as academic rigor, data sharing and mentoring. These concerns have led to calls for universities and institutions to reform the methods they use to assess research and researchers. Here we present a new tool called SPACE that has been designed to help universities and institutions implement such reforms. The tool focuses on five core capabilities and can be used by universities and institutions at all stages of reform process.

Fostering Radiation Oncology Physician Scientist Trainees Within a Diverse Workforce: The Radiation Oncology Research Scholar Track.

There is a need to foster future generations of radiation oncology physician scientists, but the number of radiation oncologists with sufficient education, training, and funding to make transformative discoveries is relatively small. A large number of MD/PhD graduates have entered he field of radiation oncology over the past 2 decades, but this has not led to a significant cohort of externally funded physician scientists. Because radiation oncologists leading independent research labs have the potential to make transformative discoveries that advance our field and positively affect patients with cancer, we created the Duke Radiation Oncology Research Scholar (RORS) Program. In crafting this program, we sought to eliminate barriers preventing radiation oncology trainees from becoming independent physician scientists. The RORS program integrates the existing American Board of Radiology Holman Pathway with a 2-year post-graduate medical education instructor position with 80% research effort at the same institution. We use a separate match for RORS and traditional residency pathways, which we hope will increase the diversity of our residency program. Since the inception of the RORS program, we have matched 2 trainees into our program. We encourage other radiation oncology residency programs at peer institutions to consider this training pathway as a means to foster the development of independent physician scientists and a diverse workforce in radiation oncology.

Young people's advisory groups in health research: scoping review and mapping of practices.

BACKGROUND: Young people's advisory groups (YPAGs) for research are comprised of children or adolescents who work with researchers to shape different stages of the research process. Their involvement is expected to ensure studies better reflect the preferences and needs of targeted youth populations. However, despite their increasing use in health research, there is little systematic evidence on the methods and impacts associated with YPAGs. METHOD: To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review of YPAGs in youth-focused health studies. We systematically searched MEDLINE for empirical studies in populations between 12 years and 18 years of age published in 2019. If a potential YPAG was identified, authors were contacted for additional information about the activities and level of involvement of the YPAG. FINDINGS: Of all studies that collected primary data from persons aged 12-18 years, only 21 studies reported using youth advice during their research. This represents less than 1% of all published empirical child and adolescent studies. There was variation in the type of research activity undertaken by YPAGs and their level of involvement. Most studies involved YPAGs in co-production of research design and/or in dissemination activities. The majority of authors that responded were positive about the impact of YPAGs. INTERPRETATION: Recommendations for consistent reporting of YPAG involvement in empirical studies include reporting on the match between YPAG and study populations, frequency/format of meetings, and the nature and level of involvement.