As the Paris Olympics showcased the power of teamwork in securing medals, new research from the University of Kansas suggests that collaboration doesn’t always yield the same success in other fields—particularly for young scientists seeking academic careers.

“We found that larger team sizes in a discipline correlate with lower career prospects for individuals,” the researchers note.

Large teams don’t help

Their study shows that those who complete their doctorates in fields where large teams are the norm tend to face worse career opportunities. The findings highlight a mismatch between how academia rewards individual contributions and the rise of team-based science.

“The number of authors per paper has changed significantly,” the researchers explain. “In economics, for example, single-author papers were common when we graduated. Now, it’s more like three to five authors per paper. In science fields, the increase has been even sharper. After the NIH budget doubled, the average number of authors on a paper went up by one.”

The researchers combined data on career outcomes from the Survey of Doctorate Recipients with publication data from the ISI Web of Science, using regression analysis to account for differences like the prestige of the scientists’ doctoral institutions.

Unintended consequences

They argue that the longer timelines for securing academic positions, from earning a Ph.D. to landing a first research grant, can be traced back to the rise in team sizes.

These insights may even apply beyond academia. “I’d be interested in exploring how team size impacts careers in the military, where working in teams is the norm,” the researchers suggest.

The key takeaway is the link between funding and team size. “If we could support more small teams rather than large ones, this could influence policy and improve both scientific discovery and career outcomes,” the authors conclude.