The present work evaluates the rise, impact, and imbalances of big-team psychology via an analysis of 3,023,895 articles published in the 21st century. Results indicate that big teams—ranging from 10 to more than 100 authors—are relatively unusual (n = 49,695) but increasing in popularity. More notably, such collaborations generate unusually high impact in terms of yearly mentions in scholarly articles (n = 39,788,158), the news (n = 1,018,639), social media (n = 5,971,965), and policy documents (n = 69,959). An examination of country-level sociocultural indicators revealed that first authors, in general, tend to be in regions that are relatively WEIRD: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. However, this imbalance is slightly more pronounced among larger teams. In summary, results suggest that big-team science is an emerging trend in psychology—one that is unevenly deployed across world regions to generate high-impact scientific insights.
AadG.AbajyanT.AbbottB.AbdallahJ.Abdel KhalekS.AbdelalimA. A.AbdinovO.AbenR.AbiB.AbolinsM.AbouZeidO. S.AbramowiczH.AbreuH.AcharyaB. S.AdamczykL.AdamsD. L.AddyT. N.AdelmanJ.AdomeitS.. . .ZwalinskiL. (2012). Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Physics Letters B, 716(1), 1–29.
2.
AkiyamaK.AlberdiA.AlefW.AlgabaJ. C.AnantuaR.AsadaK.AzulayR.BachU.BaczkoA.-K.BallD.BalokovićM.BarrettJ.BauböckM.BensonB. A.BintleyD.BlackburnL.BlundellR.BoumanK. L.BowerG. C.. . .ZeballosM. (2022). First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope results. I. The shadow of the supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 930(2), L12.
3.
AksnesD. W. (2003). A macro study of self-citation. Scientometrics, 56, 235–246.
4.
AllenL.ScottJ.BrandA.HlavaM.AltmanM. (2014). Publishing: Credit where credit is due. Nature, 508(7496), 312–313.
5.
BaumgartnerH. A.AlessandroniN.Byers-HeinleinK.FrankM. C.HamlinJ. K.SoderstromM.VoelkelJ. G.WillerR.YuenF.ColesN. A. (2023). How to build up big team science: A practical guide for large-scale collaborations. Royal Society Open Science, 10(6), Article 230235.
6.
BindraS.SharmaD.ParameswarN.DhirS.PaulJ. (2022). Bandwagon effect revisited: A systematic review to develop future research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 143, 305–317.
ChristianK.AdieE.DerrickG.DidegahF.GrothP.NeylonC.PriemJ.XuS.ZahediZ.ThengY.-L.HassanS.-U.AljohaniN. R.BowenT. D.PatelV. M.HaunschildR.BornmannL.TaylorM.RossL.KonkielS. (2020). The state of altmetrics: A tenth anniversary celebration. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13010000
ColesN. A.DeBruineL. M.AzevedoF.BaumgartnerH. A.FrankM. C. (2023). ‘Big team’science challenges us to reconsider authorship. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(5), 665–667.
ColesN. A.MarchD. S.Marmolejo-RamosF.LarsenJ. T.ArinzeN. C.NdukaiheI. L. G.WillisM. L.ForoniF.ReggevN.MokadyA.ForscherP. S.HunterJ. F.KaminskiG.YüvrükE.KapucuA.NagyT.HajduN.TejadaJ.FreitagR. M. K.. . . LiuzzaM. T. (2022). A multi-lab test of the facial feedback hypothesis by the Many Smiles Collaboration. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(12), 1731–1742.
13.
ColesN. A.TenneyE. R.ChinJ. M.FriedrichJ. C.O’DeaR. E.HolcombeA. O. (2024). Team scientists should normalize disagreement. Science, 384(6700), 1076–1077.
14.
De PeuterS.ReckJ.BellekensS.StormsG. (2024). Gift and ghost authorship and the use of authorship guidelines in psychology journals: A cross-sectional survey. Research Ethics, 21(3), 408–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241262244
ForscherP. S.WagenmakersE. J.ColesN. A.SilanM. A.DutraN.Basnight-BrownD.IJzermanH. (2023). The benefits, barriers, and risks of big-team science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(3), 607–623.
17.
GaltonF. (1907). Wisdom of the crowd. Nature, 1949(75), 450–451.
18.
GargT.AnzuoniK.LandynV.HajdukA.WaringS.HansonL. R.WhitsonH. E. (2018). The AGING Initiative experience: A call for sustained support for team science networks. Health Research Policy and Systems, 16, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0324-y
19.
GravesJ. L.Jr.KearneyM.BarabinoG.MalcomS. (2022). Inequality in science and the case for a new agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(10), Article e2117831119.
20.
HallK. L.VogelA. L.HuangG. C.SerranoK. J.RiceE. L.TsakraklidesS. P.FioreS. M. (2018). The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. American Psychologist, 73(4), 532–548.
21.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.
22.
HenrichJ.MuthukrishnaM. (2021). The origins and psychology of human cooperation. Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1), 207–240.
23.
HsiehchenD.EspinozaM.HsiehA. (2015). Multinational teams and diseconomies of scale in collaborative research. Science Advances, 1(8), e1500211.
24.
LarsenP.Von InsM. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 84(3), 575–603.
25.
LeskovecJ.RajaramanA.UllmanJ. D. (2020). Mining of massive data sets. Cambridge University Press.
NosekB. A.SpiesJ. R.MotylM. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631.
30.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), Article aac4716.
31.
PriemJ.PiwowarH.OrrR. (2022). OpenAlex: A fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.01833
32.
RohrerJ. M. (2018). Thinking clearly about correlations and causation: Graphical causal models for observational data. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 27–42.
33.
SalganikM. J.LundbergI.KindelA. T.AhearnC. E.Al-GhoneimK.AlmaatouqA.AltschulD. M.BrandJ. E.CarnegieN. B.ComptonR. J.DattaD.DavidsonT.FilippovaA.GilroyC.GoodeB. J.JahaniE.KashyapR.KirchnerA.McKayS.. . . McLanahanS. (2020). Measuring the predictability of life outcomes with a scientific mass collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(15), 8398–8403.
34.
TiokhinL.PanchanathanK.SmaldinoP. E.LakensD. (2024). Shifting the level of selection in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 19(6), 908–920.
35.
TurchinP.CurrieT. E.WhitehouseH.FrançoisP.FeeneyK.MullinsD.HoyerD.CollinsC.GrohmannS.SavageP.Mendel-GleasonG.TurnerE.DupeyronA.CioniE.ReddishJ.LevineJ.JordanG.BrandlE.WilliamsA.. . . SpencerC. (2018). Quantitative historical analysis uncovers a single dimension of complexity that structures global variation in human social organization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(2), E144–E151.
WuchtyS.JonesB. F.UzziB. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
