The Collaboration Paradox
Science is more collaborative than ever. But are bigger teams better? The data reveals a surprising truth: the most groundbreaking discoveries consistently come from the smallest teams.
The Rising Tide of Co-Authorship
Across all major scientific fields, the average number of authors on a research paper has relentlessly increased for over a century. This chart visualizes the dramatic shift from solo work to large-scale collaboration.
Two Paths to Scientific Impact
Not all scientific impact is created equal. The data shows that small teams excel at disruptive, paradigm-shifting work, while large teams are masters of developmental, incremental science.
Disruptive Science: The Nobel Standard
An analysis of Nobel Prize-winning papers reveals a consistent dominance by individuals and small teams. This chart shows the percentage of prizes awarded to teams of different sizes over the decades. Notice how the blue and green sections (1-2 authors) dominate, even in recent times.
Developmental Science: The Citation Game
Larger teams are highly effective at producing work that gets cited heavily, as they tend to focus on popular, existing research topics. However, this work is far less likely to be disruptive.
A solo author is
more likely to write a top 5% disruptive paper than a team of five.
(Source: Wu, Wang & Evans, 2019)
Why It Happens: Team Dynamics
The difference in output isn't random. It stems from the fundamental ways small and large teams think, communicate, and approach risk.
Small Teams (1-3 Authors)
"Deep Divers"
They draw on older, forgotten ideas to create novel combinations.
High Risk-Tolerance
Incentivized to pursue unconventional, high-payoff research.
Agile & Flexible
Low communication overhead allows for quick pivots and decisions.
Large Teams (10+ Authors)
"Hotspot Chasers"
They focus on recent, popular topics, refining existing ideas.
Risk-Averse
Focused on conservative, incremental progress within known paradigms.
Structured & Formal
High coordination costs can slow down decision-making.
Nurturing a Balanced Ecosystem
The goal isn't to stop collaboration, but to recognize that science needs both explorers and builders. Small teams are the disruptive "explorers" who find new worlds. Large teams are the "builders" who develop them.
A healthy scientific future depends on funding and supporting both: the small, risky bets that lead to breakthroughs and the large, collaborative efforts that turn them into progress.