4

Institutional and External Supports for Team Science

When scientists share their experiences about working in teams, they frequently refer to ways that their working environment hinders teamwork. Complaints range from the trivial—the difficulties of adding an external collaborator to a messaging system—to the existential—the bureaucratic obstacles involved in sending funds or data to collaborators at other institutions (e.g., Byers-Heinlein et al., 2020). Principal investigators also point to structures that disincentivize participation in large projects because of the emphasis placed on first- or final-author publications rather than contributions to manuscripts with many authors (e.g., Forscher et al., 2023). Members of science teams often worry that their collaborative work will not be acknowledged during their institutional tenure and promotion processes or that their work may be less likely to find a “home” in the most prestigious journals of their field (Forscher et al., 2023).

These concerns highlight that team science takes place in an overlapping set of contexts that together are important determinants of success or failure. These contexts include the institutions—academic and nonacademic—in which research takes place and their infrastructure and policies. They also include funding for team science and policies associated with specific funders. Finally, they include the scientific culture as a whole and scientific incentives that motivate research, including intersections with journals and scientific societies. Each of these contexts includes qualities that can help or hinder teams. Therefore, to best answer the question in the statement of task pertaining to best practices, the committee elected to include best practices and potential gaps that are external to the team or are situated at the institutional level. Specifically, this chapter draws from the literature to

cover institutional infrastructure, culture and policy, funders, and scientific incentives.

INSTITUTIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Because most researchers work within institutions (academic or nonacademic), they rely on these institutions to provide infrastructure to support their work. This infrastructure can range from the basic (e.g., space, connectivity, administrative support) to the highly specialized (e.g., research computing support). As researchers collaborate in larger teams that cross traditional boundaries—including laboratory groups, disciplines, and institutions—or teams that span sectors, the friction caused by infrastructural barriers (or the lack of support by a home institution) can hinder progress substantially (Forscher et al., 2023; Mirel & Harris, 2015). In this section, the committee highlights the roles that institutions play in providing physical infrastructure; technological resources, defined broadly as software, data storage, and computation; and human resources, including personnel and project management support for teams. Critically, through legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (2010), institutions are required to make reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities.

Physical Infrastructure

Physical environments can manifest a critical barrier for individuals with disabilities on teams (e.g., Lindsay & Fuentes, 2022). Despite advancements in accessibility regulations and standards, many scientific institutions and workplaces still lag in providing fully accessible physical spaces and equipment (Jeannis et al., 2020). For example, scientific laboratories are often designed without consideration for individuals with physical disabilities—for example, laboratory benches and equipment may be positioned at heights that are unreachable for scientists who use wheelchairs (Heidari, 1996; Hilliard et al., 2013). In addition, narrow or unclear aisles and nonadjustable furniture can further limit accessibility (Jeannis et al., 2020). The inaccessibility of research tools and equipment can also limit full participation in scientific research teams (Devitz, 2023). Inaccessible tools not only limit inclusivity within labs but also can prevent researchers from engaging in field research and participating fully in the workplace.

Making accessible practices systematic rather than ad hoc is crucial (Americans with Disabilities Act, 2010). For disabled scientists, this means creating an environment where their participation is seamlessly integrated into all aspects of team operations (Anderson et al., 2022; Persson et al.,

2015). Most importantly, these practices can be proactive rather than reactive (Mamboleo et al., 2020). Instead of waiting for a team member to request disability access needs or raise concerns, teams can anticipate and plan for their specific needs from the start. For example, laboratories or institutions might restructure their lab protocols to be inherently accessible by creating protocols that can be executed effectively regardless of whether someone is standing, sitting, or using assistive devices (e.g., Burgstahler, 2012). Ensuring that lab spaces are designed with adjustable workstations, sufficient maneuvering space, and accessible equipment is crucial for enabling disabled scientists to conduct their research independently (e.g., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, n.d.).

One method for addressing the need for accessible tools and the associated costs, which can often be an insurmountable barrier even when the need is recognized, is to establish an equipment repository (Devitz, 2023). The National Science Foundation (NSF) has also provided funding through Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities to support the engagement of researchers with disabilities.¹ Furthermore, a survey by the Job Accommodation Network (2023) found that many workplace accommodations were low cost.

Conference rooms and collaborative spaces can also overlook the needs of disabled individuals. Accessible meeting spaces ought to include features such as ramps or elevators, wide doorways, adequate lighting, and seating arrangements that cater to individuals with mobility impairments (Americans with Disabilities Act, 2010; Smith & Dropkin, 2018). Furthermore, the availability of assistive technologies, such as hearing loops and accessible presentation equipment, can enhance these spaces significantly (National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 2019). Solutions such as using a live interpreter rather than closed captioning when possible can optimize the effectiveness of accessibility solutions. Beyond laboratories and meeting rooms, public areas such as restrooms, cafeterias, and communal spaces also need to comply with accessibility standards (Americans with Disabilities Act, 2010). Inaccessible amenities can severely affect the overall experience and daily functioning of disabled researchers, thus indirectly affecting their productivity and sense of belonging within the team (Lindsay & Fuentes, 2022).

Notably, by using universal design principles, creating accessible environments benefits all team members, regardless of ability. Universal design principles include providing all users the same provisions, creating designs

___________________

¹ For more information about the NSF Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities, please see https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/dcl-persons-disabilities-stem-engagement-access-pwd-sea

that are flexible in nature, making designs easy to use and understand, and ensuring that designs are usable with little physical effort for all users.²

Technological Resources

Technological resources necessary to perform team science include software, data storage, and computational resources. Choices around these resources are critical enablers of progress in team science. Too often, teams take a piecemeal approach to information management, resulting in conflict that hinders their progress (Kelly et al., 2023). Furthermore, in the case of data sharing—or even sharing materials such as presentations—funders may make specific mandates regarding whether and how sharing proceeds; for example, they may regulate sharing based on specific regulations such as the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (2020) or export controls.

Collaboration Software

As teams grow larger and more distributed across time, space, and sector, the need for collaboration, communication, and project management tools increases dramatically (see Chapter 3). Practically speaking, these tools are instantiated in commercial or open-source software products (de Vreede et al., 2016). Open-source tools are freely accessible to all collaborators. While many commercial tools, such as word processing software and conference and chat platforms (e.g., Google Docs, Zoom, Slack, or Microsoft Teams), offer free versions, they are often limited in functionality and may not meet the needs of larger projects. As a result, institutions typically purchase the full versions of these tools. Site licenses for these products can be very helpful for facilitating intra-institutional collaboration—for example, by setting up shared messaging platforms or by sharing documents through institutional storage. But they can also be extremely restrictive. For example, if a cross-institution team, such as those across academia and industry, would like to set up a message board, they may not be able to—even if many or all researchers have access individually to the appropriate software (e.g., Microsoft Teams, 2025). When faced with this challenge, teams have the option to either use free versions of proprietary software or operate outside their institutions’ recommendations to reduce collaboration barriers.

The challenge of proprietary collaboration software can be addressed by both institutional and community solutions. Institutions can recognize the

___________________

² To learn more about universal design, see the Centre for Excellence in Universal Design at https://universaldesign.ie/

need for teams to access shared software platforms and allocate resources to support collaborative access, by, for example, providing guest access to important collaboration platforms (e.g., Emerson College, 2025). Alternatively, teams can consider using exclusively free and open-source software for collaboration. While many of these tools (e.g., the open-source version control package “Git”) are extremely powerful, they require substantial training to use, especially for scientists who do not have formal education in software engineering (Braga et al., 2023; Perez-Riverol et al., 2016). Indeed, recognizing this need, organizations such as The Carpentries³ train scientists in the basic open-source tools that power software engineering (Wilson, 2013).

Relatedly, one barrier to effective participation in team science can include the lack of accessible communication (Isaacson et al., 2011; Persson et al., 2015; Rizzo et al., 2024). This includes issues with verbal and written communication, as well as the use of digital tools and platforms. For example, individuals who are D/deaf or hard of hearing often face significant challenges in environments where verbal communication predominates (Adler, 2025; Gehret et al., 2017; Marchetti et al., 2024). Written materials, such as research papers, meeting agendas, and collaborative documents, may not always be available in formats that are accessible to individuals with learning disabilities or who are blind or have low vision. For instance, scientific documents that are incompatible with screen readers or lack alternative text for images and graphs can prevent individuals from fully understanding and contributing to the material (Kumar & Wang, 2024; Singh Chawla, 2024). In addition, the increasing reliance on digital communication tools for virtual and hybrid meetings may pose further accessibility challenges (Bercaru & Popescu, 2024). Platforms that do not comply with accessibility standards can be difficult or impossible for some individuals to navigate. Features such as screen reader compatibility, keyboard shortcuts, and adaptable text sizes can help make these tools accessible to all users. Furthermore, including options for text-to-speech and speech-to-text capabilities can accommodate various disabilities in real-time communication tools, such as chat functions (Bercaru & Popescu, 2024).

Data Storage

Increasingly, science is data intensive (Kitchin, 2014), and many teams require data storage and sharing infrastructure. At smaller scales, these needs can be met by user- and enterprise-focused commercial platforms, such as Dropbox or Google Drive (with all the licensing challenges described above). At larger scales and for more complex datasets, bespoke solutions are often required.

___________________

³ More information about The Carpentries is available at https://carpentries.org

In the best-case scenario, datasets are unencumbered by legal or ethical restrictions and can be shared openly. For example, when datasets (as well as working documents, protocols, and materials) are shared in open repositories, it is far easier for collaborators to access them across a wide range of platforms and geographic locations (Baumgartner et al., 2023). This greater accessibility through openness highlights the importance of open science practices in facilitating collaboration (see Box 4-1). Data can be shared

through institutional repositories such as Dataverse; cross-institutional platforms such as Zenodo, Figshare, Data Dryad, the Open Science Framework and others; and field- or dataset-specific repositories (e.g., OpenNeuro,⁴ a free and open database of brain imaging data).

Challenges multiply, however, when teams deal with datasets that are encumbered by legal or ethical restrictions—as is often the case for data from human participants in the social and biomedical sciences. For example, the overlapping regulatory constraints on sharing data from clinical trials are complex (Gudi et al., 2022). In their study of translational teams, Kelly et al. (2023) highlighted how the complex security requirements for data sharing hindered their attempts to translate research findings between university collaborators and clinical or community partners. This research demonstrates how complications may be amplified when attempting to streamline coordination of team members across sectors.

Ensuring that stored data and information are accessible is also important. For example, scientific information, whether in the form of research papers, datasets, or educational resources, can be available in accessible formats (e.g., Rizzo et al., 2024; Wu et al., 2022). This includes providing documents that are compatible with screen readers, offering braille versions, and utilizing large print formats. Utilizing plain language summaries can also enhance understanding for individuals with cognitive or learning disabilities. Visual data representations, such as charts, graphs, and infographics, play a significant role in scientific research. However, these visual tools can be challenging for individuals who are blind or have low vision. Providing alternative text descriptions, tactile graphics, and audio explanations can help make this information accessible (e.g., Vidal-Verdú et al., 2007).

Online platforms and repositories where scientific knowledge are shared also need to adhere to web accessibility standards. This includes ensuring that websites are navigable via keyboard, providing text alternatives for multimedia content, and ensuring that interactive elements are accessible. In addition, enabling customizable viewing options can help individuals tailor their browsing experience to suit their specific needs. Mandates exist, such as Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794d; General Services Administration, 2024). This is a federal law that requires agencies to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to electronic information and data comparable with those who do not have disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency. However, while compliance with standards such as Section 508 is necessary, it is merely the starting point for creating inclusive environments. Current standards can sometimes fall short of being accessible (Pearson & Alexander, 2020). Institutions can aspire to

___________________

⁴ More information about OpenNeuro is available at https://openneuro.org

go beyond compliance, adopting a proactive stance toward inclusion and equity where access is seamlessly integrated and viewed as essential, not burdensome (Humphrey et al., 2020; McDaniels & Asiedu, 2023).

Computational Resources

With the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning methods, team science projects increasingly require high-performance computing resources, including access to clusters of graphics processing units (GPUs) or other specialized hardware (e.g., Besiroglu et al., 2024; Fujinuma et al., 2022; Ho et al., 2022; Puertas-Martín et al., 2020). There are current worries about the scarcity of access to GPUs (Griffith, 2023), which could decrease innovation in universities (Ho et al., 2022). For example, availability of computational resources has been cited as a major reason why industry is taking a larger role in recent research on AI (Ahmed et al., 2023). Thus, institutional access to high-performance computing resources enables science teams to thrive (Apon et al., 2010; Vecchiola et al., 2009). In the context of cross-institutional or cross-sector teams, the ability of collaborators to offer computational resources can also be an important incentive for collaboration.

Human Resources

As teams grow larger and more complex, the human resources required to ensure their success have increased significantly. Reimagining who is considered a member of the science team and establishing appropriate funding mechanisms can help foster more inclusive and innovative research (National Science Foundation, 2023; Specht & Crowston, 2022). Much of the diversity surrounding scientists can be found in the adjacent ecosystems, including staff members, study participants, and community partners (Bergeron, 2021; Passmore et al., 2022; Swartz et al., 2019). This extends beyond simply adding more personnel; specialized expertise is needed for developing and managing team science initiatives, particularly those spanning multiple disciplines or institutions. As team science projects increasingly cross disciplines, institutions, sectors, states, and countries, grant proposals for these projects have become more challenging to prepare initially and implement successfully after receiving funding. Institutions play an important role in human resources for team science, as they can provide training in team science skills and access to designated research personnel, including individuals with skills ranging from proposal development to financial administration and compliance. Historically, NSF responded to this challenge with its Growing Research Access for Nationally Transformative Equity and Diversity (GRANTED)

program⁵ in 2023, which focused on bolstering the support ecosystem. In this context, the following sections review evidence for the role institutional personnel play in enhancing team science. Most of the works discussed are theoretical, anecdotal, or case based; more robust empirical investigations are needed.

Research Development Professionals

Research development professionals represent a relatively new but rapidly expanding profession with potential for advancing team science (Carter et al., 2019; Chedin, 2024; Hunt, 2019; Preuss et al., 2018). In the view of the National Organization of Research Development Professionals (NORDP, n.d.), research development “encompasses a set of strategic, catalytic, and capacity-building activities that advance research, especially in higher education” (p. 1). Research development grew out of research administration, coinciding with more competitive funding environments and additionally the rise of higher-dollar, longer-term team science opportunities from major funders that placed new demands on research ecosystem personnel to actively and intentionally support budding science teams (Levin, 2011; Mason & Learned, 2006; Mulfinger et al., 2016). As discussed in Chapter 3, most factors that influence team science success fall outside technical, disciplinary areas that comprise the bulk of scientists’ training and expertise—that is, outside task competence. Building on this history, NORDP’s (n.d.) four research development pillars are:

1. enhancement of collaboration and team science,
2. strategic research advancement,
3. communication of research and research opportunities, and
4. proposal development.

Given its relative newness, the role of research development professionals is evolving in the university ecosystem. The exact roles they play depend on their placement within an institution, including whether they are located within a central office or spread across smaller units, such as colleges, medical schools, and research centers. Overall, though, research development professionals’ contributions can cut across all four of the NORDP components. For example, they may deliver grant training that can lead to more collaborative proposals; convene research groups and networking opportunities that can build cross-disciplinary, cross-sector, and cross-institutional bridges; disseminate funding opportunities that can initiate a

___________________

⁵ More information about the GRANTED program is available at https://new.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/broadening-participation/granted

team effort; and provide extensive proposal development and interpersonal coaching that can produce more competitive funding proposals, including for large research centers. For institutions that offer internal team science seed-funding opportunities, it is common for research development professionals to lead or otherwise facilitate these programs. For example, Stanford University’s Research Development Office (2024) is staffed by a group of research development professionals with experience in team science.

Survey data collected from NORDP members showed that research development professionals view “proposal development support for large, multi-investigator project grants” as their most important activity, outranking “grant team project management (coordination of meetings, proposal development deadlines, shared documents, etc.)” (Ross et al., 2019, p. 118). Stephens et al. (2024) were the first to empirically (albeit retrospectively) test what were previously only descriptive linkages between the support of research development professionals and funding outcomes. In the context of a U.S. medical school, they found that coaching in teamwork provided by research development professionals is positively associated with an awarded outcome, with notable gains for new teams and those with both research and clinical responsibilities (Stephens et al., 2024), suggesting the value these professionals can add for teams when familiarity and bandwidth among team members are low. A related, yet distinct area of potential support for a team includes funding for Research Specialist Awards, such as those offered by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Similar to research development professionals, these awards are designed to support the research with personnel who do not serve as independent investigators (National Cancer Institute, 2024).

Research Administrators

While research development professionals support the formation, ideation, resource acquisition, and proposal development of science teams, research administrators support team science from a distinct yet equally important lens of compliance, monitoring, reporting, and financial support services (National Council of University Research Administrators, n.d.). Research administrators can be in a main sponsored programs office or distributed across an institution. They are well positioned to mitigate documented scientific costs of multi-institutional collaborations (e.g., Cummings & Kiesler, 2007), including helping teams spend less time and attention navigating institutional differences in appointment structures, salary payments, and policies.

Additionally, anecdotal evidence suggests that research administrators can be essential when science teams partner with other community members or organizations outside academia. Even when sponsors such as

the National Institutes of Health (NIH) encourage a community-engaged approach, specific guidance around how to fund such engagement in team science can be sparse. Moreover, the proposal guidelines and policies that do exist are designed for use by academic actors (Seidel, 2022). Research administrators can bridge this gap between funders, science teams, and community partners by helping to administer subawards or subcontracts to community partner organizations and by ensuring necessary assurances, certifications, and protections are in place. From a fiscal standpoint, and relevant to the following discussion of nonscientist collaborators, research administrators can also bridge compliance gaps between a funder’s allowable costs and a community partner’s budgetary and compensatory needs, which may look different from what is traditionally found in a research proposal budget and for which no standard rates apply (Seidel, 2022).

Facilitators and Integration Experts

Scholars increasingly call for greater recognition of and support for specialized professionals who operate at the nexus of research, relationships, and operations to help teams navigate the inherent challenges of collaboration and maximize potential benefits (e.g., Barker Scott & Manning, 2024). The specific roles and terms used to describe them (e.g., interdisciplinary executive scientist, facilitator, integration expert, coach) may differ, but there is significant conceptual similarity among them.

Hendren & Ku (2019) identified the role of interdisciplinary executive scientist as one who coordinates and connects into an integrated whole the scientific, administrative, and interpersonal pieces of a science team. These professionals, they argue, operate within the liminal spaces between roles and disciplines to actively ensure desired outcomes, such as synthesis and translation, are achieved rather than simply assuming they will emerge (Hendren & Ku, 2019).

Duke University’s Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI), funded in part by NIH, instituted the similar role of project leader after recognizing that asking principal investigators to lead the project, team, and science efforts at once is unrealistic and unsustainable, especially if their training has been only scientific (Sutton et al., 2019). As an extension of the principal investigator, CTSI project leaders pair their scientific understanding with team science best practices and tools, including team charters and project development plans, to achieve collaborative goals (Sutton et al., 2019). Vogel et al. (2021) described how the Division of Preclinical Innovation within NIH’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences has institutionalized roles to support its large, heterogeneous science teams as well. These roles include, for example, project analysts, who track team activities and schedule meetings, and

project managers, who take leadership roles in scientific discussions and mitigating conflict.

Another role in team studies is that of facilitator, or one who supports collaboration for research teams, with a key distinction being how external they are to the team (see Widdowson et al., 2020). Facilitators might be engaged to oversee discussions (Clutterbuck, 2007) or manage the collaborative process (Hawkins, 2018), while not necessarily being part of the team. In recent years, the role of facilitator has been tailored for science teams and established as a semiformal position within a team. This role is typically filled by someone skilled in scientific collaboration practices who might also possess interactional expertise (Cravens et al., 2022). Interactional expertise involves a certain understanding of scientific tasks, enabling the facilitator to communicate relevant scientific practices (Bammer et al., 2020; Collins & Evans, 2019). However, others suggest that science facilitation may focus simply on tasks such as organizing scientists and their meetings or coordinating projects (Jiang et al., 2023).

A closely related but more specialized role is that of an integration expert, whose focus is on helping scientists combine knowledge across various disciplines. Hoffmann et al. (2022) described integration experts as scholars who “lead, administer, manage, monitor, assess, accompany, and/or advise others” (p. 3) during interdisciplinary teamwork. This can also involve some form of coaching.

Although the roles described here are defined by different competencies, there is overlap; facilitation, integration, and coaching frequently intersect in these discussions. For instance, Cravens et al. (2022) mentioned that cofacilitators can act as coaches to support reflective learning, while Hoffmann et al. (2022) highlighted advising as a competency for integration experts, which they define as including “accompanying, supporting, or coaching others” in leading integrative efforts and achieving integrated outcomes (p. 3). As another example, several scholars have highlighted how facilitation is key for guiding effective team processes, designing productive interactions, fostering communication, promoting participatory decision-making processes, and encouraging knowledge exchange (Cravens et al., 2022; Graef et al., 2021; Kaner, 2014).

A substantial issue requiring more study is the fact that professionals inhabiting such roles are most often tied to temporary project funding. Since many science teams begin as unfunded collaborations or use institutional seed funding, support for these roles may not be available. Furthermore, even when personnel with expertise relevant to team science are engaged, they are more likely to be misunderstood, overlooked, and undervalued because of their boundary-spanning position (Bammer et al., 2020; Hendren & Ku, 2019; Hoffmann et al., 2022; Lyall, 2019). As a result, sustainable, long-term investments in personnel are needed as critical team science

infrastructure (Hendren & Ku, 2019; Hoffmann et al., 2022; Rolland et al., 2017).

Regardless of whether individuals are engaging in unfunded, institutionally funded, or sponsored research, the personnel discussed in this section are critical to making teams work and achieving their scientific goals. Much about this process remains understudied, however. As discussed, if the members of a science team are broadened to include research development professionals who are involved in the conception, development, implementation, and dissemination of team science inputs, processes, and outcomes, institutions may be able to better develop metrics to help assess the efficacy of these roles in contributing to team science. Importantly, measuring efficacy can be done at multiple levels, from surveying team members to assessing their connection to broader team science metrics (see Chapter 5). Periodic assessments can inform continuous improvement of individuals, their roles, or departmental processes, and can quantify and characterize how research development personnel, or related professionals, contribute to team science outcomes at their institutions (Bennett & Gladin, 2012). For example, there is little research on which project management tools, models, or frameworks are being adopted by individuals within these roles and whether these approaches address the administrative, coordinative, and generative workload that can accompany team science (e.g., innovation and project management research [Davies et al., 2018]).

Other Nonscientist Team Members

Several applied science fields offer approaches and frameworks that more directly address including nonscientist team members as part of the science team. These include community-based participatory research (CBPR) and human factors or ergonomics (HFE) science, in part because their research objectives often cannot be achieved without input from nonscientist team members (Giardullo, 2023; McDermott, 2022). Whereas CBPR grew out of health research domains (Leung et al., 2004) and HFE from addressing human–technology performance concerns during World War II (Meister, 1999), both fields are concerned with improving systems and testing interventions. In CBRP and HFE, success is measured by the actual adoption of the intervention, not just a demonstration in a laboratory that it works. Thus, for both CBPR and HFE, it is practically impossible to achieve their research objectives without including nonscientist teammates as study participants or localized subject matter experts and community partners, who may play a critical role as recruiters, maintainers, improvers, problem definers, problem solvers, and implementers of parts of a project that are necessary to realize the project’s scientific or research objectives (Gopalan et al., 2020).

While including nonscientists as team members may not be as critical for all scientific fields, it is increasingly important for scientists and researchers aiming to tackle complex problems that may require complex solutions. The effective and ethical implementation and adoption of AI in society is one example of a complex societal problem that will increasingly need to involve marginalized communities that have been traditionally excluded from AI research and development teams (Parthasarathy & Katzman, 2024). Agricultural development research (Ingram, 2014) and sustainability (Diaz-Reviriego et al., 2019; Ernst et al., 2017; Osinski, 2021) also frequently involve and rely on people who are not career scientists in their research work and knowledge implementation. In general, these subject matter experts comprise the very population that the researchers are intending to help (Smikowski, 2009; World Health Organization, 2023). Scholars have discussed the importance of not only involving nonscientist team members but also implementing routine practices that foster trusting relationships. This can include the ethical and safety considerations of data sharing practices for example, with those who have historically not been on science teams (Kraft & Mittendorf, 2024; Sabatello et al., 2022).

INSTITUTIONAL CULTURE AND POLICY

Institutional policies and informal cultures can support and motivate team science; alternatively, they can create barriers that stifle scientific collaboration and the production of interdisciplinary research. To support team science, institutions can carefully consider the nature of their policies and cultures and, as needed, revise policies to streamline collaboration and encourage and reward teamwork (National Research Council, 2015). For example, hiring, tenure, promotion, and other reward systems (e.g., internal institutional awards, small grants) may need to be revised to reward team science. Policies related to materials and data sharing, ethical approvals, and staffing support may need to be revised to reduce unnecessary barriers to team science. This section will consider the impact of institutional policies and cultural features on scientific collaboration and suggest strategies for creating institutional environments that are conducive for team science.

Material Transfers, Data Sharing, and Intellectual Property Policies and Procedures

Policies related to materials and data sharing are often cited as significant barriers to team science (Borgman, 2012; Kowalczyk & Shankar, 2011). Indeed, because science teams are more likely to need to share materials and data, they are more likely to need to work with personnel who have expertise in these policies (e.g., research administrators, other

team science–related personnel). One hurdle for research teams is the complexities involved in negotiating material transfer agreements and data use agreements, which may deter researchers from sharing valuable resources (Mello et al., 2020). These agreements are designed to protect intellectual property and ensure ethical use of materials and data, but they can become overly burdensome and time consuming. Challenges related to these agreements can be overcome through the open release of data and materials in cases where no privacy or intellectual property constraints exist (see Box 4-1). When such concerns exist, however, institutional policies can be a determinant of whether sharing is possible (Bubela et al., 2015).

Barriers to Collaboration

A primary challenge for team science related to material transfer and data use agreements is the intricate legal and administrative processes they often entail (Mello et al., 2020). These agreements are often reviewed extensively by legal departments, which can lead to prolonged negotiations. Researchers often navigate multiple layers of approval, from their home institution to the receiving institution, each with its own set of requirements and protocols. This bureaucratic maze can result in significant delays, sometimes stretching into months, thus stalling scientific progress (Bubela et al., 2015; Mello et al., 2020).

The lack of standardized templates and procedures for material transfer and data use agreements across institutions further complicates the process. Each institution may have its own unique agreement terms and conditions, leading to a situation where each new collaboration necessitates the drafting of a bespoke agreement. This lack of uniformity not only increases the time required to finalize agreements but also may add to the costs involved (Mello et al., 2020). Institutions and researchers may find themselves in prolonged negotiations over specific terms, such as intellectual property rights, confidentiality clauses, and usage limitations.

Although the protection of intellectual property is a legitimate concern, the stringent terms often embedded in material transfer and data use agreements can be counterproductive (Bubela et al., 2015). For example, clauses that limit the sharing of derivative works or impose strict usage restrictions can inhibit the free flow of information and resources necessary for collaborative research. Researchers might hesitate to share their materials or data, fearing that they may lose control over their intellectual contributions or that their work might be misappropriated.

Similar barriers exist in collaborations among industry, academia, and/or national laboratories, where intellectual property and publication terms are agreed upon in advance of any collaboration. In such arrangements, industry benefits from expanding their capabilities and subject matter

expertise to answer fundamental research questions that may be beyond the scope of what their organization is able to address alone, and academia benefits from additional funding sources, direct access to industrially relevant research challenges, and expanded networks for students who may be interested in a career in industry following their academic studies (Chai & Shih, 2016; Stuart & Ding, 2006).

Impact on Collaboration

In combination, complex legal and administrative processes, a lack of standardization, and stringent limitations on the sharing of intellectual property can be a significant deterrent to team science collaboration (Mello et al., 2020). Researchers, especially those studying time-sensitive topics in fields such as medicine or environmental science, may opt to work independently rather than engage in the cumbersome process of securing material transfer and data use agreements. This fragmentation of effort can lead to duplicated work, inefficiencies, and a slower pace of scientific advancement (Bubela et al., 2015).

In the field of biomedical research, for example, sharing biological samples, such as cell lines, tissues, and genetic material, is critical. However, the negotiation of transfer agreements for these materials can be particularly arduous. For example, a researcher attempting to obtain a unique cell line from another institution might face months of negotiations over the terms of use, publication rights, and potential commercial applications. This delay can hinder timely research advancements and potentially delay the development of new therapies or diagnostic tools.

Similarly, environmental scientists often rely on data collected from different geographical locations and multiple research teams. The negotiation of data use agreements for accessing these datasets can be fraught with challenges. Institutions may have different data protection policies, leading to lengthy negotiations. For instance, a researcher seeking to combine climate data from different sources to study global patterns may face significant delays due to the need to secure multiple data use agreements, each with specific requirements and restrictions.

Potential Solutions

One effective strategy for mitigating these barriers is the standardization of material transfer and data use agreements (Bubela et al., 2015). Developing common templates that are accepted across institutions can streamline the negotiation process. Federal funding organizations can spearhead efforts to create standardized agreements that balance the need for intellectual property protection with the facilitation of scientific collaboration

(e.g., Bennett et al., 2010). Furthermore, it may be worth exploring whether having specialized teams that understand the intricacies of these agreements can expedite the review and approval process (Steiner et al., 2023).

Creating clear and flexible guidelines for the use of materials and data can also help. Institutions can provide researchers with frameworks that outline the necessary ethical considerations without imposing overly stringent requirements. Providing researchers with training and resources to understand and comply with these guidelines can further reduce the compliance burden. Often teams can pursue an “open by design” strategy to foresee and avoid complex regulatory situations (National Academies, 2018). Institutions and funding agencies can also create incentives for sharing materials and data, by, for example, recognizing such sharing in their metrics for research products. U.S. federal funders now require data sharing (Nelson, 2022), and grant proposals could be evaluated favorably if they include proactive plans for both scientific data sharing and public-facing dissemination. Recognizing and rewarding researchers who contribute to shared resources can also foster a culture of openness and collaboration (Nosek et al., 2015; Shaw et al., 2022). Lastly, advanced technologies can provide solutions for some of these challenges. Online platforms that facilitate the sharing of materials and data, equipped with built-in compliance and tracking features, may have the potential to streamline these processes (Wegner et al., 2024).

In conclusion, although policies related to materials and data sharing are essential for protecting intellectual property and ensuring ethical research practices, they can become significant barriers to team science if not managed effectively. The complexities and time-consuming nature of negotiating material transfer and data use agreements can deter researchers from engaging in collaborative efforts, thereby slowing scientific progress and innovation. By pursuing open-science policies when possible, standardizing agreements, providing centralized legal support, creating clear guidelines, offering incentives, and leveraging technology, institutions can reduce these barriers and promote a more collaborative and productive research environment.

Ethical Approvals

For research involving human participants, ethical approval from institutional review boards (IRBs) is one of the most important—and sometimes one of the most challenging—administrative tasks (Oakes, 2002). This generalization can often be especially true for practitioners of team science, for whom the challenge of obtaining ethics approval in a single discipline and institution is multiplied by navigating multiple IRBs across institutions (McWilliams et al., 2003; Peek et al., 2021). Furthermore, this situation can

result in substantial variation in ethics review outcomes, which means that participants may be protected to greater or lesser degrees depending on the vagaries of local review (Caulfield et al., 2011). This situation has improved in recent years but can remain challenging in the context of international or non-university collaborators.

Prior to 2018, researchers engaged in cross-institutional research were typically required to pursue independent review by local IRBs. This situation required substantial duplication of effort and could easily lead to difficult situations in which different IRBs required conflicting alterations to a protocol. NIH addressed this issue in 2018 by revising the Common Rule to require a single IRB to be designated as the primary site for review of multisite projects involving human participants (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018). IRBs for other participating institutions are required to create a reliance agreement with the primary IRB. These agreements substantially decrease the burden of review by independent sites but still require a significant investment of resources by participating investigators (Resnik et al., 2018). Evidence from a similar policy instituted earlier by NCI indicates that a single-IRB process led to substantially more efficient review and higher satisfaction for investigators (Massett et al., 2018). Consistent with this evidence, a qualitative study of single-IRBs in clinical trials regulated by the Food and Drug Administration showed generally high satisfaction with the process (Corneli et al., 2021). Unfortunately, single-IRB policies driven by the Common Rule do not apply to international research with human participants; hence, multisite international collaborations can remain quite challenging from the perspective of ethical approvals.

Hiring, Tenure, Promotion, and Reward Policies and Procedures

Historically, academic success has been measured by individual achievements such as the number of first-authored publications, personal citation counts, and individual grant awards. These criteria are often used in hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions to assess a candidate’s contributions and impact within their field. Although these metrics can provide a quantifiable measure of an individual’s academic performance, hiring, tenure, and promotion policies and procedures that focus exclusively on these metrics can disincentivize collaborative efforts (Bouwma-Gearhart et al., 2021). Indeed, the focus on individual achievements can create a competitive environment where researchers are less likely to engage in team science (National Academies, 2020). Collaborative projects, which often involve shared credit and coauthorship, may be viewed as less valuable during tenure and promotion evaluations. As a result, researchers might avoid interdisciplinary collaborations and/or team-based research out of fear that their contributions will not be recognized nor rewarded. To foster a culture of team science,

universities may need to revise these policies to encourage and reward collaboration (Klein & Falk-Krzesinski, 2017).

Hiring Practices

University hiring policies and procedures can support interdisciplinary collaboration by emphasizing the value of differing expertise and teamwork in the recruitment process. For example, job descriptions could explicitly state the importance of interdisciplinary research and collaborative skills, ensuring that candidates understand the institution’s commitment to team science. Hiring committees can be composed of members from various disciplines to evaluate applicants’ potential for cross-disciplinary work effectively. Additionally, universities can prioritize candidates with a proven track record of successful collaborations, assessing their ability to integrate different perspectives and contribute to multifaceted projects (Klein & Falk-Krzesinski, 2017). Joint appointments across departments or faculties, for instance through interdisciplinary research centers, can further encourage interdisciplinary engagement by encouraging researchers to bridge gaps between fields and foster a culture of cooperation (Hart & Mars, 2008; Yang et al., 2020). Providing resources and support for collaborative research, such as funding for interdisciplinary projects and access to shared facilities, can also enhance the appeal of the institution to prospective hires. A useful tool to support collaboration across units is a memorandum of understanding (MOU). These can be established between participating units to ensure transparency. Like a team charter, MOUs can help establish a mutual understanding on roles and responsibilities and financial commitments. They can also specify the administrative contacts, level of expected effort, and the general scope of the work (Platt et al., 2024). Klein & Falk-Krzesinski (2017) added that MOUs not only define expectations but also can specify what is required for teaching and service across the participating departments, as well as percentages of time the employee dedicates to each. By integrating these elements into hiring policies and procedures, universities can create an environment that attracts and nurtures researchers committed to interdisciplinary collaboration.

From an industry perspective, having a proven track record of being able to successfully collaborate across teams in different institutions and geographies may provide candidates with an advantage over those with a more siloed research experience. Industry considers the ability to effectively collaborate across disciplines and business groups (e.g., supply chain, manufacturing, sales, marketing) as part of a baseline set of skills that is critical to success (Schwartz et al., 2019).

In March 2022, the U.S. House and Senate passed the America COMPETES (America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote

Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science) Act, which was a reauthorization of the COMPETES Act of 2007. The basis of this act was to enhance U.S. economic and technological leadership by investing in “innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States” (America COMPETES Act, 2007). One key provision of the act called for investing in research and development that emphasized science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) education and workforce development. The act acknowledges the need for a more representative workforce in STEMM fields and calls for measures to broaden participation.

Systemic barriers can be found in hiring, promotion, and recruitment practices, as well as resource allocation and power distribution (Bhalla, 2019; Li & Koedel, 2017; National Academies, 2023). These biases may undermine initiatives such as America COMPETES. For example, Milkman et al. (2015) found significant biases in professors’ responses to prospective doctoral students, with fewer responses going to applicants who were women or from a minoritized group. The same study illustrated the need to not focus solely on one part of the barrier, but in the case of hiring and recruitment, that attention be given to both increasing individual differences on the supply side (e.g., by focusing on improving the heterogeneity of the applicant pool) and reducing bias on the demand side (e.g., by addressing personally held biases within the hiring and research context). Sege et al. (2015) summarized their preliminary findings in a research letter in which they found that female early career faculty received significantly less start-up support than their male counterparts. Nguyen et al. (2023) found disparities in super principal investigator representation across gender and racial lines, with significant gaps for women and Black researchers (super principal investigator was defined as investigators who hold three or more concurrently active research grants). Despite a threefold increase in super principal investigators between 1991 and 2020, women and Black super principal investigators remained significantly underrepresented, even after controlling for factors such as career stage and educational background (Nguyen et al., 2023). The intersection of race and gender creates compounded disadvantages, most notably for Black women principal investigators, who were 71 percent less likely to achieve super principal investigator status than White male principal investigators (Nguyen et al., 2023). This stark disparity suggests that systemic barriers go beyond applicant pool issues and points to deeper institutional challenges in advancement opportunities, mentoring systems, resource allocation, and institutional support for underrepresented scientists. As a result, long-standing gender imbalances can create additional challenges for women and racially minoritized individuals seeking to advance in their careers (Casad et al., 2021; Charlesworth & Banaji, 2019; National Academies, 2023).

Tenure and Promotion

Tenure and promotion policies and procedures can significantly support team science by recognizing and rewarding collaborative efforts alongside individual achievements (Carter et al., 2021). Promotion and tenure systems are often criticized for their lack of transparency and potential biases. Traditional metrics for evaluation, such as publication count, journal impact factors, and grant money, may inadvertently disadvantage certain groups of individuals, such as women (Misra et al., 2011). To foster a culture of interdisciplinary collaboration, universities could revise evaluation criteria to include contributions to team-based research projects, coauthored publications, and collaborative grant awards (Klein & Falk-Krzesinski, 2017; Meurer et al., 2023) and provide clarity for the evaluators and investigators on the criteria (Potter et al., 2024). For example, Meurer et al. (2023) outlined criteria that can be used to evaluate how well a faculty member helps with team effectiveness (e.g., “develop consensus around shared research goals,” “provide participatory, inclusive, and empowering leadership” [p. 4]), as well as how they contribute to the scientific process (e.g., assist in developing research questions, engage in data analyses and interpretation). Klein & Falk-Krzesinski (2017) further noted that existing policy documents related to tenure and promotion need to be evaluated to ensure they do not penalize or marginalize interdisciplinarity and team science. As such, evaluation criteria would consider investigators who may contribute a high level of expertise in a methodological or theoretical approach (e.g., qualitative/quantitative methods or community engagement), who are sought out as collaborators on multiple projects and grants for their unique skills and may or may not have their own line of research. Metrics can be expanded to assess the impact and quality of collaborative work, rather than focusing solely on the quantity of solo-authored outputs (Meurer et al., 2023). Allowing tenure and promotion candidates to submit narrative statements that detail their role in team science, the significance of their collaborative contributions, and the outcomes of such efforts can provide a more comprehensive evaluation of their achievements. Additionally, recognizing leadership roles within collaborative projects, such as coordinating research teams or managing interdisciplinary initiatives, can highlight the importance of teamwork in achieving significant scientific advancements. By incorporating these elements into tenure and promotion criteria, universities can incentivize researchers to engage in team science, ultimately enhancing the institution’s research capabilities and addressing complex, multifaceted problems through a collaborative approach. For example, the University of Southern California (2022) policy on promotion and tenure provides explicit guidelines on the use of external letters and the candidate’s research statement to clarify unique contributions to team science.

Academic departments can inadvertently create barriers to team science based on the journals they privilege for recognition and reward. When departments exclusively reward publications in disciplinary journals, they often send a message that only research contributions within that single discipline are valuable for their employees to pursue (Mäkinen et al., 2024). These metrics can discourage constituent scientists from pursuing interdisciplinary collaborations and/or publishing in journals that reach broader audiences, as these endeavors may be seen as less prestigious or beneficial for career advancement. On the other hand, departments have the potential to foster collaboration and interdisciplinary research by rewarding publications based on their overall quality, regardless of the specific journal (Frank, 2019). By recognizing and valuing publications across a range of disciplines, departments can encourage scientists to engage in team science, share knowledge across fields, and contribute to more comprehensive and innovative research. This approach not only supports the career growth of individual researchers but also has the potential to enhance the overall quality and societal impact of the scientific work produced (Arnold et al., 2021; Carter et al., 2021; Mazumdar et al., 2015; Moher et al., 2018).

To value and support team science, tenure and promotion policies and procedures may need to be expanded to include collaborative leadership, interdisciplinary contributions, and the effective management of research teams. This may mean recognizing the critical roles that researchers play in team-based projects, from coordinating large, multifaceted studies to facilitating communication and cooperation among team members. It also may mean recognizing the longer timescale of many team science projects (Hall et al., 2012). Incorporating diversity into the promotion and tenure criteria can incentivize faculty to engage in activities that promote values such as mentoring diverse students or leading community-based projects (Stewart & Valian, 2018). This also recognizes and gives credit for the valuable mentoring and community-engaged work (Sotto-Santiago et al., 2023). This multifaceted approach could be considered more akin to how industry treats promotions, where promotions are generally based on technical, business, and organizational impact, all of which may require strong collaboration skills, interpersonal effectiveness, and teamwork.

Additionally, tenure committees could understand and appreciate the unique dynamics of team science, which often involve substantial time investments in team formation, coordination, and ongoing communication (Klein & Falk-Krzesinski, 2017). Revising tenure criteria to reflect these aspects can help institutions foster a culture that not only incentivizes but also rewards collective scientific efforts. By doing so, they can promote an environment where collaborative research is valued, leading to greater scientific innovation and impact. This approach not only benefits individual researchers by recognizing their contributions to team efforts but also can

advance the institution’s overall research mission by encouraging interdisciplinary and high-impact projects.

FUNDERS

Major funders of research within the United States and globally have long understood the value of team science for addressing priority challenges and accelerating innovation. For instance, NSF funded the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC)⁶ in 2011 as a first-of-its kind center focused on growing researchers’ team science capacities to address interdisciplinary problems collaboratively at the interface of humans and the environment. As another example, the NIH National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (2024) launched the Transdisciplinary Collaborative Centers for Health Disparities Research Program in 2012 to support “collaboration at the regional level […] because it provides opportunities for institutions and organizations to achieve a broader reach than is possible with isolated local efforts while combining expertise and resources in an era of constrained budgets” (Section I).

As described in Chapter 2, interest in funding team science since the publication of the 2015 report has continued (National Research Council, 2015). In 2017, NSF amplified its support of team science by prioritizing foundation-wide investments in cross-disciplinary collaboration and creative cross-sectoral partnerships, establishing “Growing Convergence Research” as one of its 10 Big Ideas.⁷ Also important to consider is whether funding agencies’ signaled interests in and support for team science efforts align with other aspects of the research funding landscape, such as proposal solicitations and review and project funding.

Proposal Solicitations and Review

How funders solicit and review research proposals, including funding opportunity language and requirements, can have implications for team science effectiveness. For example, NSF’s (2024) call for Science and Technology Centers (STCs) allows for the inclusion of team science–related requirements at all levels, including in the proposal content (e.g., “Highlight the unique assets and strengths, including the diversity of experiences and perspectives, of the proposing team compared to other groups working in related areas” and “Identify specific activities and mechanisms that will enable cross-organizational and cross-sector integration of the team”) (p. 11)

___________________

⁶ More information about SESYNC is available at https://www.sesync.org

⁷ More information about NSF’s 10 Big Ideas is available at https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/big_ideas/index.jsp

and solicitation-specific review criteria (e.g., “Is the team of partner organizations and personnel assembled for the proposed Center appropriate, essential and consistent with the solicitation? Is the role of each participant clear? Does the partnership have unique strengths?”) (p. 20).⁸

NSF’s Engineering Research Center (ERC) program has prioritized team science in its solicitations. For example, in 2018, for applicants who made it past the preproposal stage for ERCs, NSF funded attendance at a team science workshop led by SESYNC, which featured sessions and talks led by team science experts from across the country with goals of elevating and strengthening team science in ERC proposals. Actions taken by programs such as the STC and ERC encourage proposal teams to factor team science principles and best practices into their project design (and budget) from inception; they also allow NSF as the funder to weigh team science–specific concerns in its decision-making processes.

The degree to which the STC and ERC calls explicitly prioritize and integrate team science is not typical of proposal solicitations from funding agencies; however, more subtle proposal requirements, resources, and policies can still influence team science outcomes. For example, NIH allows for a multiple principal investigator option on grant applications. This option requires that applicants include a leadership plan that addresses the responsibilities of each principal investigator, as well as publication policies and procedures for resolving conflicts.⁹ To aid in plan development, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences offers agreement templates and discussion questions¹⁰ to guide collaborators (see also the discussion on team charters in Chapter 3). Similarly, at NSF, team proposals are increasingly required to develop a collaboration plan that reflects on the rationale for the collaboration while detailing team plans for communication, governance, integration, project management, and more (e.g., see NSF I-Corps Teams¹¹). NSF’s invitation to submit collaborative proposals, where multiple institutions submit as equal partners, may additionally spur more productive collaborations as this option can save both time and money by eliminating subawards and equalizing power dynamics between collaborating entities.

Although some aspects of the proposal development process have changed in recent years in response to the rise of team science, the committee discussed that the proposal review process has largely stayed the

___________________

⁸ More information about the program solicitation is available at https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/science-technology-centers-integrative-partnerships/nsf24-594/solicitation

⁹ For more information about NIH’s option for multiple principal investigators, see https://grants.nih.gov/grants-process/plan-to-apply/consider-your-idea-resources-and-collaborators/multiple-principal-investigators

¹⁰ See https://ncats.nih.gov/research/alliances/forms-and-model-agreements

¹¹ See https://www.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/i-corps/about-teams

same. Some programs, such as the STC, have begun to include additional solicitation-specific review criteria and thus ask for evaluation of team science aspects of the proposed activities. Largely, however, proposals to major funding agencies are not assessed based on team science activities. If team science is not included in review criteria, investigators will not be incentivized to consider team planning and organization, in turn potentially decreasing the effectiveness of their teams.

Project Funding

Which proposals are funded, and how recipients are permitted to use those funds, can also have implications for team science. Support for team science training, for example, is most readily available in large center grants or training grants (e.g., National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 2025); however, team science approaches are important for teams and projects of all sizes (Hall et al., 2018). There is evidence showing that, compared with investigator-initiated research grants, NIH-funded transdisciplinary center grants faced an initial lag in productivity; however, they saw overall advantages for productivity and collaboration (Hall et al., 2012). The presence of such a lag suggests that the typical 3- to 5-year length of research awards may be too short to allow for proper planning, trust, relationships, shared vision, integration, dissemination or translation of project results, and other key aspects of team science to occur. Furthermore, planning grants, seed funding, travel for face-to-face meetings, and project coordinators can benefit science teams, yet such funding may not always be available or allowable. With the 26% federal cap on indirect administrative costs, which was implemented in 1991 (University of California, n.d.), budgetary restrictions on costs that are positively linked with team science outcomes means that award recipients may take on greater financial burdens to keep pace with the needs and costs of conducting team science effectively (Hall et al., 2018).

Beyond lack of support for team science components of funded proposals, a lack of funding for research on science teams is also problematic. More specifically, funding is lacking tremendously for those who want to study team science effectiveness. This creates a research-to-practice gap, in that the prevalence of science teamwork outpaces the ability to guide it. Research associated with science teams can often be viewed in a supporting or evaluative role rather than as a necessary research field in and of itself. As has been made clear throughout this report, however, there is a lack of strong evidence linking team science interventions or best practices to positive team science outcomes. With little funding made available for research on science teams, funding agencies may continue to rely upon guidance for funding and supporting science teams that is not fully informed by rigorous research (e.g., Berg, 2017; Kaiser, 2017).

Finally, funding agencies can directly or indirectly disincentivize team science through other policies as well. For example, tightening research security restrictions—such as the NIH (2023) laboratory notebook policy that requires foreign grant subrecipients to provide yearly copies of all lab notebooks and documentation to the primary grant recipient—can impose significant administrative burdens and potential privacy concerns that could dissuade international collaboration. As another example, programs supported by the 2018 Farm Bill limit total indirect costs for an entire award to 30%, meaning that all collaborating institutions would be in a position to recover costs from a single small pool of funds rather than independently at their federally negotiated indirect cost rate (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2018). If collaborations cost institutions more than they benefit them, advances in team science are likely to stagnate.

SCIENTIFIC INCENTIVES

As discussed throughout this chapter, researchers are highly responsive to scientific incentives as imposed by institutions, funders, and their broader field. To the extent that these incentives reward team science, researchers will feel empowered to participate in team science; in cases where incentives are unfavorable, they may not be able to participate. This section discusses incentives that (dis-)incentivize contribution to team science.

Authorship, Contributorship, and Credit

Scientific publications serve as the primary currency in academia, where a researcher’s career trajectory often hinges on the number of peer-reviewed articles listing them as an author. Scientometric indices, such as the h-index or the i10, index further quantify researchers’ impact based on citation rates of their publications (Mingers & Leydesdorff, 2015). The importance of these authorship metrics in hiring, tenure, and grant decisions is well documented (e.g., see Moher et al., 2018, for a review). Yet these metrics do not reflect the reality that authors contribute in very different ways to projects. According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (n.d.), listed authors are those who contributed to writing the paper and to the research being reported, approved the final manuscript, and agreed to be held accountable for the work; however, authorship standards vary widely across fields and even from journal to journal (Yale University, n.d.).

The authors on a paper are given as a list of names, but parsing out the contributions of each name is very difficult (e.g., Venkatraman, 2010). In standard biomedical authorship conventions, first authorship indicates primary responsibility for the scientific work described in the article (and,

typically, true “authorship”—that is, having written the first draft of much or all the text of the article). In contrast, “senior” or last authorship typically indicates supervisory responsibility. For others, the order indicates significance of contributions. In fields following this convention, first-author positions are especially coveted, sometimes leading to the presence of “multiple first authors,” as indicated by a note that several authors have contributed equally. In still other fields, such as economics, authorship order is typically alphabetical, and the assumption is that all authors made equal contributions. For external readers, especially those with limited knowledge of a particular field, it can be mystifying to decode the contributions of individual authors from the list.

Notions of authorship are even more challenging in team science (Coles et al., 2023). Increasingly, scientific papers have hundreds or even thousands of authors, a situation termed hyperauthorship (Cronin, 2001; Nogrady, 2023). One wonders how to apportion credit and responsibility among so many. In addition, the threshold for what constitutes authorship can be challenging to delineate within a science team when participants’ contributions differ so widely. To address these issues, in 2015, the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) introduced a taxonomy of contributions to scholarly work, ranging from conceptualization to funding acquisition (Brand et al., 2015). The intent of this taxonomy was to allow researchers to designate the role or roles that each contributor played in a project, obviating guesswork about how contributions were distributed across an author list. Since its introduction, a wide variety of journals have adopted CRediT (Allen et al., 2019), and in 2022, it was adopted as an American National Standards Institute (2022) standard (Z39.104-2022).

Another challenge for science teams is considering how team members can contribute to a multiauthor paper. Borer et al. (2023) provided a model for a collaborative process for writing papers with large numbers of authors, in which the lead author(s) establishes a “storyboard” for the paper and solicits specific and targeted contributions—for example, providing citations, creating figures, considering alternative hypotheses, and other moderately sized tasks—in an iterative, deadline-driven process. Frassl et al. (2018) provided a complementary set of rules for large teams to create a collaborative and productive writing process.

Synthesizing this set of issues, science teams navigating questions of authorship need to establish clear rules for what constitutes authorship, how to track the different kinds of contributions that authors may make to a project, and how to establish opportunities for team members to contribute to the written product (e.g., Baumgartner et al., 2023). Considerations for fairness and accountability should be made (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, n.d.), to ensure that all participating authors such as those who are early career or nontraditional team members can

be included. Returning to the guidance of Chapter 3, science teams could consider adopting such policies in their team charters.

Journals, Societies, and the Broader Field

Journals are the venues in which credit and authorship are determined, and their policies can provide powerful incentives and disincentives for team science. For example, a journal’s requirement for individual author data to be entered into a web portal is not onerous for a small team, but for a team with hundreds or thousands of authors, this requirement can be prohibitive for submission. Allowing batch upload of name, affiliation, and Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) or other identifiers can make a journal accessible to larger teams. In addition, many journals ask for individual authors to provide explicit confirmation for submission (e.g., by way of email notification). This well-intentioned confirmation can inadvertently create a difficult situation for hyperauthored papers, in which a single contributor whose contact information changed can prevent a submission from going forward.

One potential solution for larger science teams is to pursue “group authorship” (also known as “consortium authorship”), where a single group name is given in place of a list of individual authors. This solution appears appealing but can have a variety of unintended consequences (Hosseini et al., 2024). Group authorship can pose technical challenges in associating the manuscript with the contributors’ citation records, which can decrease incentives for contribution. In addition, issues of legal and ethical responsibility for the manuscript can be more problematic when individuals are not listed as authors (Hosseini et al., 2024). Thus, group authorship may not be a panacea; instead, journals ought to create policies that facilitate large teams in navigating the submission and publication process.

Scholarly societies provide another venue for recognition of scientific contributions, which can potentially facilitate team science. Many societies control important journals in their field and set their authorship policies. In addition, they often provide recognition of their members’ accomplishments through awards. If these awards can be given to teams (e.g., as in the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science Mission Award¹²) or to team leaders, this simple step can promote participation and change incentives for team participation.

Finally, embracing open-science values (Christensen et al., 2020; National Academies, 2018) can provide positive support for team science.

___________________

¹² More information about the the SIPS Mission Award is available at https://improving-psych.org/mission/awards

Many large teams use open practices (see Box 4-1) and many teams also produce shared resources that benefit their field as a whole (Nogrady, 2023). Support—and recognition for the contributions of—open science can facilitate recognition of the many contributions that teams make beyond specific publications. Box 4-2 highlights a project that used open-science practices in a team science context to track research products and incentivize sharing of code, data, and materials.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion 4-1: Institutions wishing to foster the study of team science would benefit from reviewing the incentive structures that influence individuals’ decisions about engaging in such research. Specifically, many policies and practices that are currently in place surrounding tenure and promotion, authorship, cost-sharing, allowable costs, and resource-sharing appear to discourage engagement in the study of team science and participation in collaborative science teams. Institutional processes can also reinforce disparities in team science by failing to properly recognize work in team science, including community-engaged research and mentorship.

Recommendation 4-1: Academic departments should adapt their promotion and tenure processes to acknowledge and reward the contributions of researchers who take on the additional professional responsibilities associated with participating in and studying team science by:

1. recognizing and incorporating in tenure evaluations the valuable contributions made through different authorship roles, publications in interdisciplinary or nontraditional journals, and process-oriented outcomes.
2. ensuring that the demographic and disciplinary composition of promotion and tenure committees is both reflective and independent of the candidates they are reviewing to the extent possible to facilitate increased representation in science team leadership.
3. revising criteria for selection to ensure fair consideration of candidates who research and team with underrepresented communities and/or do community-engaged research.
4. considering candidates’ involvement in committees, initiatives, and other activities, including engagement outside the scientific community, that offer value to science teams and encourage participation.
5. reviewing the promotion and tenure process periodically, for instance every several years, to ensure continuous improvement and minimize inefficiencies.

Recommendation 4-2: Science journal editors should establish comprehensive systems and policies to build team science into the publishing mainstream, including:

1. conducting a systematic assessment to identify barriers that may limit the incorporation of team science literature in their journal. These findings should be used to develop actionable strategies to address identified barriers.

2. adopting clear policies and guidelines for authorship, allocation of credit, and contribution level, particularly when there are many contributing authors and when authors are contributing from different disciplines with different authorship practices. Policies can include strategies for addressing authorship disputes.
3. allocating appropriate space to publish research on the science of team science.

Recommendation 4-3: Funders of team science, including the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the many other agencies and foundations that support research, should integrate team science needs into funding programs and policies and should remove barriers to team science efficacy by:

1. including team science needs, such as team-building, travel and meetings, professional development and training, and resource-sharing in allowable costs.
2. allowing for the inclusion of nonscientist team members and leaders in the project budget to allow for the compensation of their time.

Recommendation 4-4: Institutions seeking to advance team science effectiveness should allocate resources to support science teams. Resource allocation may cover, but is not limited to the following:

1. resources that mitigate the operational burden on science teams by investing in the support of administrative staff.
2. training and mentorship for research administrative staff working on team science projects.
3. resources to expand access to and the use of technologies that optimize team participation for geographically dispersed members.
4. funding to address gaps in the physical, digital, and procedural environment. This could include applying universal design principles that accommodate the needs of all individuals.

REFERENCES

This page intentionally left blank.