• Accessing different specialties on a project. Adding researchers with unique or distinct skillsets to a team can allow a lab to solve specialized problems. More generally, a diversity of expertise allows researchers to learn from one another.
• Having multiple minds to confirm validity. Precise methodologies, in the lab or in data analysis, are best checked by multiple researchers to confirm both the accuracy of the result and the validity of the interpretation or conclusion. The more diverse the minds in the room, the better chance at the best possible interpretation you get.
• Gaining access to different resources. Involving researchers from different institutions or countries enables a project to access certain locations, technologies, or equipment that one institution wouldn’t always have.
• Making procedures happen simultaneously. A larger team allows more research activities to occur at the same time, which can lead to faster or more expansive scientific results.
• More opportunities for credits and citations. A large team allows numerous authors to receive journal authorship credit, and a project with more contributors also will naturally have more opportunities to be shared with others.

• Research disagreements. Tough scientific problems rarely have an obvious approach, and having multiple experts can inevitably lead to arguments over the correct procedure or interpretation. Multiple headstrong researchers in a collaboration can stall a project significantly or lead to interpersonal issues.
• Resource inefficiency. Collaborations, especially international ones, are expensive. While oftentimes collaborations lead to increased efficiencies, having a large number of people spending more time conducting more procedures can be a drag on limited human resources.
• Time inefficiency. The larger a team, the more meetings are required, and the higher the chances that some miscommunication, delay, or inefficiency will occur.
• Difficult to execute. When multiple parties are involved in a project, it takes sound leadership to ensure that everyone has the same expectations, goals, and attitude. It can also be more difficult to hold individuals accountable for their work on a large team. In addition, the more complex a project is, the more difficult it is to replicate. Lack of reproducibility is already a major crisis in modern research, so extensive collaborations may be one factor contributing to this trend.
• Authorship disagreements. While this issue can be solved with communication, researchers must be in firm agreement about the order of authorship and who the primary authors are.

Expansive, cross-border collaboration is necessary to solve certain research problems. Other times, a single researcher conducting an experiment is most efficient and most effective. Most often, the best path for any research project lies somewhere in between. Here are four crucial factors to consider when deciding on research team size:

• Consider the complexity of the task: Larger teams tend to be more effective at handling complex tasks. These tasks might require different areas of expertise. More simple or routine tasks run more smoothly with smaller teams.
• Consider ‘process gains’ and ‘process losses’: Research shows that individual effort tends to decrease with larger groups, leading to ‘process losses’ of efficiencies. Meanwhile, studies show that small-medium teams of 5-8 tend to exhibit ‘process gains’. That’s because these teams are large enough to offer diverse perspectives, but small enough for team members to know and trust one another, complementing each other’s skills and weaknesses.
• Consider team structure: Larger teams require a specific structure to run efficiently, typically with 2-4 members dominating the decision-making. But smaller teams of around 4 or less can self-organize and self-lead.
• Consider the ‘minimum viable team’ size: Given that there is a trade-off in efficiencies with larger project sizes, the concept of ‘MVT’ or minimum viable team size is a good target to shoot for—the least number of people needed to succeed at a research project. Generalized guidelines suggest that complex research projects have a MVT of 5-8 team members.

Given the pitfalls of collaborative research—especially the declining efficiencies that come alongside larger teams—taking advantage of best collaborative practices is key. Here is a list of practices we curated from experts.

Teammates that complement each other can be the difference between a successful and a struggling collaboration. Members should be compatible and even similar in terms of working style, communication preferences, and in terms of their standards of rigor and ethics. However, members should contrast in terms of their particular areas of expertise and what they will be contributing to the project: duplicate skill sets are typically to be avoided.

Open and clear communication is vital to the success of any research project. Whether it is regular face-to-face or virtual meetings, a team group chat, or any other style of communication, all team members should be on board about openly communicating using the selected communication method.

Each member of a research team needs well-defined goals and expectations. Standards should be set in terms of:

• Overall role and responsibilities. What specifically is each team member going to be held accountable for at the end of the day?
• Workload and timeline. How much, how often, and until when will the member be working on the research project?
• Expected and desired outcomes. What outcome is the member supposed to produce?

4. Develop a plan

A comprehensive research plan can help to structure the collaboration and hold members accountable. A good research plan will:

• Define the project purpose.
• Outline the research methodology and approach to data collection and analysis.
• Outline the process for writing up and disseminating findings.
• Identify a team structure and objectives/tasks for each individual.
• Create a timeline for completing the tasks.

There are a number of useful digital research technologies that teams can employ to manage a large project. (Check out a list of some useful collaborative tools here.) Taking advantage of the right one—whether it’s a comprehensive lab management software or Cloud Kanban boards—is key to activating good collaboration.

Collaborators should also make use of secure methods for data storage, access, and sharing. They should also set clear standards about data ownership, access, and confidentiality to prevent issues down the road.

A good team culture is just as important as a good team plan. Individual researchers will thrive when they feel valued, respected, and included. Here are some useful ways to create an inclusive culture:

• Set aside regular time to evaluate and reflect on the collaboration, and offer chances for team members to share their thoughts and feedback.
• Celebrate milestones and individual as well as team accomplishments.
• Set clear diversity, equity, and inclusion guidelines and standards.

We’ve curated this additional list of essential factors experts keep in mind when working on international collaborations. There is a lot to consider when maximizing the potential of team partnerships, so scientists have a lot to gain by bearing the following points in mind.

1. How to find potential collaborations 

Locating and joining collaborations is the first crucial step to actually having a good research project. For researchers in the early stages of their career, embracing mentorships can help lead to prospective collaborations. Entering an established relationship with other research colleagues can make the ‘ask’ to join a team come along much more naturally. For starting collaborations of your own, joining discussion groups, whether online or at your institution, can help make connections or locate collaborators.

Lastly, staying on top of new research in your field is an essential way to see what possible collaborations or research projects are ongoing. In addition to staying up to date by following relevant scientific journals and by attending conferences and symposiums, online services such as NewsRx’s BUTTER offer real-time custom alerts on your area of expertise.

A key to getting along with others on a collaborative research project is to remain humble and open to constructive criticism. Being flexible and open to other approaches and ways of working can also pay dividends. When entering a collaboration, even world experts on a particular matter should be open to learning something from their partners.

A collaboration agreement is a formal document that records the framework of any particular research collaboration. While they are often used for larger collaborations at major institutions, experts say that even smaller collaborations should consider making these documents to promote transparency and trust.

Collaboration agreements should outline the project’s key goals, timelines, roles, responsibilities, and intellectual property and authorship agreements.

4. How to manage conflicts

From disagreements over methodology or conclusions, to differing visions on how to disseminate and share results, conflicts are inevitable on a collaborative research project. Here are some quick and easy tips for conflict resolution in these cases:

• Identify and address causes of conflict. Common culprits are management style, lack of communication, poorly-defined roles and responsibilities, scarce resources, and underperforming team members.
• Compromise and reconcile. Find common ground and agree on a compromise so that neither party feels undermined. In science, compromises can be more difficult to find—so rather than looking for a compromise that would affect the integrity of a study, look for a compromise in terms of interpersonal relationships and team member wants and needs.
• Create an open dialogue. When a lack of communication is a contributing factor to conflict, oftentimes team members need to be heard above all else.

Although international collaboration has become a prominent part of the research world, there are several key remaining gaps that the community collectively needs to address.

Research shows that having more team members leads to a greater dissemination of research—to a certain point. According to a study in Science, when team size grew beyond twenty, more authors no longer led to more citations. The maximum team size that led to greater productivity was around twenty, and studies with larger teams no longer performed as well. This fits with the theory of ‘diseconomies of scale,’ which states that marginal costs increase once organizations surpass a certain optimal size.

Wicked problems in research are scientific challenges that are particularly difficult solve. As defined by the theorists Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber, these problems cannot be studied through trial and error or with a control group. They do not have objective ‘true’ or ‘false’ solutions, but rather subjective ‘good’ and ‘bad’ solutions. In science, a few wicked problems include the climate crisis, the mental health crisis, and systemic racism and inequality.

These very problems, however, are the crucial ones that science must find a way to address. While international collaboration is good for combining previously inaccessible technologies and areas of expertise, it tends to function best with a clear and objective path forward. Wicked problems necessarily defy this path.

The benefits of scientific collaboration are not always shared equally. Experts point out that large-scale collaborations tend to follow the initiative and agenda of the largest scale, most powerful partner involved—and the same institution or individual receives the lion’s share of the credit, whereas smaller partners receive only downstream benefits. According to Elsevier VP Lesley Thompson, an internal study at Elsevier also observed that women tend to have smaller collaborative networks compared to men in science, leading to a gender-based disadvantage when collaboration rules the day.

Since the 2010s, scientific collaborations between the two biggest science powers in the world—the U.S. and China—have been slowing down drastically. Experts say this largely has to do with geopolitical tensions: the U.S. government has been scrutinizing scientists with ties to China due to intellectual property theft and espionage risks, which has harmed partnerships. The government of China has also shifted its evaluation of science more towards articles published in Chinese scientific journals rather than English ones, encouraging Chinese scientists to focus more on local partnerships and collaborations.

International, large-scale collaboration has become a critical part of the scientific landscape. In fact, national governments are pouring even more money into massive collaborative networks, particularly to promote climate change research and solutions. Canada, the U.K., and the Netherlands in the last 10 years alone have invested at least 300 million dollars in this type of research. While some truly impressive collaborative accomplishments have already been seen (such as a paper on Higgs boson that had over 5,000 collaborators), we might be at the very beginning of the scientific coproduction era, rather than in the thick of it.

This style of collaboration can help tackle large problems, but it’s far from all sunshine and roses. Scientists may be a part of larger outcomes, but instead receive smaller pieces of credit for their contribution. Sure, you won’t have to fly out for a conference, but you’ll need to take the Zoom call at 6am instead.

Scientists need to be agile and prepared to change, with all the right technological tools at their disposal. The 21st century scientist is a different kind of beast—and collaborative science is a different kind of science. The best we all can do is ready ourselves for the next, inevitable, world-changing transformation.