Large Teams Overshadow Individual Recognition
Lulin Yang, Donna K. Ginther, Lingfei Wu

TL;DR
This study reveals that large scientific teams tend to overshadow individual contributions, exacerbating recognition disparities, and emphasizes the need for better credit assignment in collaborative research.
Contribution
The paper introduces the first large-scale dataset on author contributions and analyzes how team size influences individual recognition in science.
Findings
Teams amplify the Matthew Effect in scientific recognition.
Large teams obscure individual contributions, making recognition more difficult.
Analysis shows a correlation between team size and reduced individual credit attribution.
Abstract
In an ideal world, every scientist's contribution would be fully recognized, driving collective scientific progress. In reality, however, only a few scientists are recognized and remembered. Sociologist Robert Merton first described this disparity between contribution and recognition as the Matthew Effect, where citations disproportionately favor established scientists, even when their contributions are no greater than those of junior peers. Merton's work, however, did not account for coauthored papers, where citations acknowledge teams rather than individual authors. How do teams affect reward systems in science? We hypothesize that teams will divide and obscure intellectual credit, making it even harder to recognize individual contributions. To test this, we developed and analyzed the world's first large-scale observational dataset on author contributions, derived from LaTeX source…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsKnowledge Management and Technology
