Creativity in scientific teams: : Unpacking novelty and impact

By You-Na Lee, John P. Walsh, Jian Wang. 2015

330 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Sociology and Political Science, Statistics and Probability, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3db3ea657724a885f2907c7cdff4857f5e8cb249

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Frederick Anseel
2. Alain de Beuckelaer

In Statistics and Probability

1. Jian Wang
2. Reinhilde Veugelers
3. Frederick Anseel

In Strategy and Management

1. Jian Wang
2. Reinhilde Veugelers
3. Frederick Anseel
4. Alain de Beuckelaer

Citations in the corpus

• Scientific novelty and technological impact (2019, background): “In addition, we control for the number of backward references of the focal scientific publication and its number of authors, which have been observed to be correlated with novelty (Uzzi et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2018), as well as technological impact (Popp, 2017).”
• Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students (2017, background): “Second, as most PhD students are part of larger research teams, whose composition determines scientific impact (Lee et al., 2015), PhD students with mental health issues may pose a considerable cost to research institutions and teams.”
• Convergent Thinking Moderates the Relationship between Divergent Thinking and Scientific Creativity (2019, background): “The process of scientific problems solution usually involved three stages (Ayas & Sak, 2014; Hu & Adey, 2002; Lee et al., 2015; Sak & Ayas, 2013): problem generation, method searching, and choice.”