Research performance, crucial for advancing productivity, refers to the achievements scientists make in their research endeavours. As scientific work becomes increasingly complex, enhancing research performance is becoming more challenging. However, previous investigations suggest that there may be a certain correlation between scientists’ knowledge diversity and knowledge synergy characteristics, providing potential new avenues for improving research performance. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the impact of scientists’ knowledge diversity and knowledge synergy on research performance. First, this study quantifies scientists’ knowledge diversity and knowledge synergy based on the similarity between scientists’ research fields and the degree of knowledge transfer among scientists. Then a negative binomial regression model is constructed, by using scientists’ cumulative publication counts, cumulative citation counts, average citation counts per article, average citation counts per year and H-index as dependent variables, with knowledge diversity and knowledge synergy as independent variables. In addition, variables such as scientists’ career age were controlled for in the model. Finally, empirical analysis is conducted using the data set of scientific publications from the American Physical Society from 1979 to 2009. The results indicate, first, that there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between knowledge diversity and research performance; as scientists’ knowledge diversity increases, research performance exhibits a trend of initial growth followed by a decline. Second, knowledge synergy has a moderating effect on this relationship; the stronger the knowledge synergy effect, the steeper is the inverted U-shaped relationship between knowledge diversity and research performance, and the higher is the peak of the curve.
LucasREJr.Ideas and growth. Economica2009; 76: 1–19.
2.
TeodoridisF.Understanding team knowledge production: the interrelated roles of technology and expertise. Manage Sci2018; 64: 3625–3648.
3.
AndersenH.Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A2016; 56: 1–10.
4.
YuLYanYLiM.Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher faculty performance? Evidence from an accelerated research university in China. Sustainability2022; 14: 1–19.
5.
LungeanuAHuangYContractorNS.Understanding the assembly of interdisciplinary teams and its impact on performance. J Informetr2014; 8: 59–70.
6.
JinLSunH.The effect of researchers’ interdisciplinary characteristics on team innovation performance: evidence from university R&D teams in China. Int J Hum Resour Manag2010; 21: 2488–2502.
7.
KarierT.Intellectual capital: Forty years of the Nobel Prize in economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
8.
AbramoGD’AngeloCACostaFD.Research collaboration and productivity: is there correlation?High Educ2009; 57: 155–171.
9.
AldieriLKotsemirMVinciCP.The impact of research collaboration on academic performance: an empirical analysis for some European countries. Socio-econ Plan Sci2018; 62: 13–30.
10.
KimJKuskoRZeskindB, et al. A primer on applying AI synergistically with domain expertise to oncology. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer2021; 1876: 188548.
11.
de GrootWT. Environmental science theory: concepts and methods in a one-world, problem-oriented paradigm. New York: Elsevier Science, 1992.
12.
MathieuJEHeffnerTSGoodwinGF, et al. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J Appl Psychol2000; 85: 273–283.
13.
CroninMAWeingartLR.Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Acad Manage Rev2007; 32: 761–773.
14.
CorrocherNLenziC.Exploring the sources of knowledge diversity in founding teams and its impact on new firms’ innovation. J Evol Econ2022; 32: 1091–1118.
15.
UrionabarrenetxeaSFernández-SainzAGarcía-MerinoJ-D.Team diversity and performance in management students: towards an integrated model. Int J Manag Educ2021; 19: 100478.
16.
RuefMAldrichHECarterNM.The structure of founding teams: homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. Enterpreneures. Am Sociol Rev2003; 68: 195–222.
17.
HuangH-CLaiM-CLoK-W.Do founders’ own resources matter? The influence of business networks on start-up innovation and performance. Technovation2012; 32: 316–327.
18.
TalkeKSalomoSRostK.How top management team diversity affects innovativeness and performance via the strategic choice to focus on innovation fields. Res Policy2010; 39: 907–918.
19.
ShinSJKimT-YLeeJ-Y, et al. Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: a cross-level interaction. Acad Manage J2012; 55: 197–212.
20.
LetenBBelderbosRLooyBV.Technological diversification, coherence, and performance of firms. J Prod Innov Manage2007; 24: 567–579.
21.
Randy EvansWCarsonCM. A social capital explanation of the relationship between functional diversity and group performance. Team Perform Manag2005; 11: 302–315.
22.
ZouaghiFGarcia-MarcoTMartinezMG.The link between R&D team diversity and innovative performance: a mediated moderation model. Technol Forecast Soc Chang2020; 161: 120325.
23.
BaeKBSkaggsS.The impact of gender diversity on performance: the moderating role of industry, alliance network, and family-friendly policies – evidence from Korea. J Manag Organ2019; 25: 918–913.
24.
LatashML.Synergy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
25.
WuchtySJonesBFUzziB.The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science2007; 316: 1036–1039.
26.
ZhaiSXiaLChiM, et al. Configurational determinants of time-to-win in NSFC youth program funding: insights from Chinese library and information science. Inf Process Manage2024; 61: 103649.
27.
ParkJYImISungC-S.Is social networking a waste of time? The impact of social network and knowledge characteristics on job performance. Knowl Manag Res Pract2017; 15: 560–571.
28.
CoadATimmermansB.Two’s company: composition, structure and performance of entrepreneurial pairs. Eur Manag Rev2014; 11: 117–138.
29.
FlemingLSorensonO.Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data. Res Policy2001; 30: 1019–1039.
30.
ErnstDKimL.Global production networks, information technology and knowledge diffusion. Ind Innov2002; 9: 147–153.
31.
TiddJOE. Conjoint innovation: building a bridge between innovation and entrepreneurship. Int J Innov Manag2014; 18: 1450001.
32.
TsaiK-HLiaoY-CHsuTT.Does the use of knowledge integration mechanisms enhance product innovativeness?Ind Mark Manage2015; 46: 214–223.
33.
FreyKLüthjeCHaagS.Whom should firms attract to open innovation platforms? The role of knowledge diversity and motivation. Long Range Plan2011; 44: 397–420.
34.
HarrisonRHSt-PierreJ-PStevensMM.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: a year in review. Tissue Eng Part B Rev2014; 20.
35.
GrayWSBundersonJvan der VegtGS, et al. Leveraging knowledge diversity in hierarchically differentiated teams: the critical role of hierarchy stability. Acad Manage J2023; 66: 462–488.
MathewsMD.Negative synergy: a macro perspective for environmental issues. Int Adv Econ Res2006; 12: 424.
39.
KassiciehSKWalshSTCummingsJC, et al. Factors differentiating the commercialization of disruptive and sustaining technologies. IEEE Trans Eng Manage2002; 49: 375–387.
40.
CarleyKMC.Coordinating the success: trading information redundancy for task simplicity. In: Twenty-third Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2–5 January, Kailua-Kona, HI, pp. 261–270.
41.
RossML.The political economy of the resource curse. World Polit1999; 51: 297–322.
42.
YanEDingYCroninB, et al. A bird’s-eye view of scientific trading: dependency relations among fields of science. J Informetr2013; 7: 249–264.
43.
StirlingA.A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. J R Soc Interface2007; 4: 707–719.
44.
RaoCR.Diversity: its measurement, decomposition, apportionment and analysis. Sankhyā Ind J Stat Ser A1982; 44: 1–22.
45.
LeydesdorffLWagnerCSBornmannL.Interdisciplinarity as diversity in citation patterns among journals: Rao-Stirling diversity, relative variety, and the Gini coefficient. J Informetr2019; 13: 255–269.
46.
ZhangLRousseauRGlänzelW.Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals: taking similarity between subject fields into account. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2015; 67: 1257–1265.
47.
JiangMLiuRWangF.Word network topic model based on Word2Vector. In: 2018 IEEE fourth international conference on big data computing service and applications (Bigdataservice), Bamberg, 26–29 March 2018, pp. 241–247.
48.
AhlgrenPJarnevingBRousseauR.Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson’s correlation coefficient. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2003; 54: 550–560.
49.
FerkissV.Synergetics: explorations in the geometry of thinking. JSTOR1976; 17: 104–108.
50.
CharlesworthD.Balancing selection and its effects on sequences in nearby genome regions. PLoS Genet2006; 2: e64.
51.
PinfoldJL.The Synergy between Astroparticle andCollider Physics in the Search for Dark Matter. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2011, pp. 228–240.
52.
MuñizK.High-oxidation-state palladium catalysis: new reactivity for organic synthesis. Angew Chem Int Ed2009; 48: 9412–9423.
53.
LuburićR.Synergistic effects of total quality management and operational risk management in central banks. Int J Qual Res2012; 6: 381–388.
54.
IgnjatijevićS.Economic analysis of exporting Serbian honey. Int Food Agribus Manag Assoc2018; 21(7): 1–16.
55.
AbramoGD’AngeloACMurgiaG.The relationship among research productivity, research collaboration, and their determinants. J Informetr2017; 11: 1016–1030.
56.
LarivièreVGingrasYSugimotoCR, et al. Team size matters: collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2015; 66: 1323–1332.
57.
LeeSBozemanB.The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Soc Stud Sci2005; 35: 673–702.
58.
GuanJZuoKChenK, et al. Does country-level R&D efficiency benefit from the collaboration network structure?Res Policy2016; 45: 770–784.
59.
ZhuNLiuCYangZ.Team size, research variety, and research performance: do coauthors’ coauthors matter?J Informetr2021; 15: 101205.
60.
AschhoffBGrimpeC.Contemporaneous peer effects, career age and the industry involvement of academics in biotechnology. Res Policy2014; 43: 367–381.
61.
SchillingMAGreenE.Recombinant search and breakthrough idea generation: an analysis of high impact papers in the social sciences. Res Policy2011; 40: 1321–1331.
62.
HolleyJW.Tenure and research productivity. Res High Educ1977; 6: 181–192.
63.
BelkhoujaMYoonH.How does openness influence the impact of a scholar’s research? An analysis of business scholars’ citations over their careers. Res Policy2018; 47: 2037–2047.
64.
EdgarFGeareA.Factors influencing university research performance. Stud High Educ2013; 38: 774–792.
65.
BaumannH.Publish and perish? The impact of citation indexing on the development of new fields of environmental research. J Ind Ecol2002; 6: 13–26.
66.
NederhofAJ. Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: a review. Scientometrics2006; 66: 81–100.
67.
MoedHFBurgerWJMFrankfortJG, et al. The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Res Policy1985; 14: 131–149.
68.
HirschJE.An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics2010; 85: 741–754.
69.
HirschJE.An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2005; 102: 16569–16572.
70.
HuBZhongZZhangY, et al. Understanding the influencing factors of bicycle-sharing demand based on residents’ trips. Physica A2022; 586: 126472.
71.
ChenQ.Advanced econometrics and applications on Stata. Beijing, China: Higher Education Press, 2014.
72.
HaansRFJPietersCHeZ-L.Thinking about U: theorizing and testing U-and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strateg Manage J2016; 37: 1177–1195.
73.
LarivièreVCostasR.How many is too many? On the relationship between research productivity and impact. PLoS ONE2016; 11: e0162709.
74.
BenekeGSchurinkWRoodtG.Towards a substantive theory of synergy. SA J Hum Resour Manag2007; 5: 9–19.
75.
HoislKGruberMContiA.R&D team diversity and performance in hypercompetitive environments. Strateg Manage J2017; 38: 1455–1477.
