The scientific enterprise has always been driven by strong-minded people. Institutions, funding, and recognition are still organized around the idea that competition among individuals in a free market of ideas is the best way to advance research.
Go beyond “publish or perish” by measuring behaviors that benefit academia
However, the advent of “big science” has focused more on teams than on individuals. Studies have shown that research groups and collaborations, and the culture in which they operate, are key to promoting high-quality, impactful science. One analysis of 65 million research papers, patents, and software products found that teams were more likely to generate revolutionary science than individuals (L. Wu et al the. nature 566378-382; 2019). Another study found that groups with a collaborative, non-hierarchical culture were more likely to innovate (F.Xu et al the. Brooke. Natl Acad. Science fiction. USA 119e2200927119; 2022).
However, the ways in which universities and researchers are evaluated have not changed. True scientific and societal transformation requires not only the best scientists, but also the best teams. It is time to value and reward teams, not just individual scientists.
This call to action forms a fundamental pillar of Denmark’s presidency of the Council of the European Union. It is also the focus of attention High-Level European Union Conference on Research Evaluation Reform In Copenhagen this week, which I chair. More than 300 representatives from European and international universities and funding agencies will discuss the future of global research evaluation. They will also chart new directions for improving the research culture based on quality, trust and collaboration.
The scale of the challenge is clear. Yes, great teams are made up of competent individuals. But an inclusive, effective and creative culture is just as important – and this is difficult to build and measure. Here are some preliminary recommendations to support a collaborative culture.
Do you want to advance your science? Turn to the technicians
First, funders and university leaders must understand what makes a strong team. To create an environment that supports collaboration, leaders and organizations must foster clear vision, trust, and shared values. They should also hire people with good interpersonal skills to promote inclusivity and collegiality in teams, as well as in the day-to-day management of the laboratory.
Second, the scientific community needs to agree on how to evaluate a group’s research culture. An individual’s productivity can be assessed—albeit imperfectly—by the number of publications, citations, awards, and grants he or she receives. It is difficult to evaluate team performance, including joint problem solving, collaborative learning, and leadership.