Great science happens in great teams — research assessments must try to capture that
By David Budtz Pedersen — Nature, 02 December 2025
Summary
The author argues that although modern research increasingly depends on teams, assessment systems still prioritise individuals. Evidence from large-scale studies shows teams are more likely to produce disruptive and innovative science, and collaborative, non-hierarchical cultures boost creativity. The piece calls for Europe to reform research assessment to recognise and reward team performance and research culture rather than just individual outputs.
David Budtz Pedersen, chairing the EU High-Level Conference on Reforming Research Assessment, outlines preliminary recommendations: funders and university leaders must identify and support the qualities that make teams strong (clear vision, trust, shared values), hire for interpersonal and collegial skills, and work towards agreed methods to evaluate team culture — including joint problem-solving, collaborative learning and inclusive leadership.
Key Points
- Science has shifted towards team-based work; analyses show teams produce more disruptive and innovative outputs than individuals.
- Current assessment metrics remain individual-focused (publications, citations, awards, grants) and often overlook team contributions and culture.
- Leaders and funders should recognise team qualities: clear vision, trust, shared values and interpersonal skills that promote inclusivity.
- New assessment indicators are needed to capture team behaviours: collaborative problem-solving, learning, leadership and collegiality.
- Denmark’s EU presidency and a Copenhagen conference are driving a push to reform research assessment across Europe to improve research culture and innovation.
Context and relevance
This article connects to wider debates about research culture, reproducibility and incentives in academia. Reforming assessment touches hiring, promotion, funding allocation and daily lab practices. For universities, funders and policy-makers, adopting team-sensitive evaluation could reduce perverse incentives from ‘publish or perish’ and foster more inclusive, effective research environments. For researchers and team leaders, it signals potential changes to what gets recognised and rewarded.
Why should I read this?
Look — we still score researchers like solo athletes while the real wins come from teams. If you care about funding, careers or making your lab a better place to do meaningful science, this is worth a quick read: it shows where incentives are broken and points to practical fixes that could actually make research healthier and more innovative.