Scholarlink

<p>Achieving novelty and impact is a core challenge in collaborative R&amp;D, making it essential to understand how team structures shape these dual outcomes for effective science policy. This study analyzes 6497 research papers from 1082 government-funded biotechnology projects in South Korea (2012–2020) to examine how partner diversity—defined by the institutional composition of universities, research institutes, and firms—affects scientific novelty and impact. Novelty is measured using SBERT, a sentence-transformer model that captures semantic distance from cited literature. This study finds a tradeoff: partner diversity is negatively associated with novelty due to integration challenges under time-constrained project settings but positively associated with impact as diverse outputs appeal to broader audiences. To deepen these findings, k-means clustering shows that small firm–dominant teams are more homogeneous with higher novelty but lower impact, whereas university-led teams are more diverse and show the opposite. Post-project effort moderates these tradeoffs: continued collaboration reduces novelty loss, but delays can weaken citation impact. Finally, a case analysis of outlier projects that achieved both high novelty and impact identifies key antecedents—moderate diversity, triadic team structures, and R&amp;D maturity. These results provide how policy makers can align collaboration design and evaluation with specific research goals.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Partner diversity and post-project effort in achieving scientific novelty and impact

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月19日

查看全文
  • Chaewon Park,
  • Sung Joo Bae

摘要

Achieving novelty and impact is a core challenge in collaborative R&D, making it essential to understand how team structures shape these dual outcomes for effective science policy. This study analyzes 6497 research papers from 1082 government-funded biotechnology projects in South Korea (2012–2020) to examine how partner diversity—defined by the institutional composition of universities, research institutes, and firms—affects scientific novelty and impact. Novelty is measured using SBERT, a sentence-transformer model that captures semantic distance from cited literature. This study finds a tradeoff: partner diversity is negatively associated with novelty due to integration challenges under time-constrained project settings but positively associated with impact as diverse outputs appeal to broader audiences. To deepen these findings, k-means clustering shows that small firm–dominant teams are more homogeneous with higher novelty but lower impact, whereas university-led teams are more diverse and show the opposite. Post-project effort moderates these tradeoffs: continued collaboration reduces novelty loss, but delays can weaken citation impact. Finally, a case analysis of outlier projects that achieved both high novelty and impact identifies key antecedents—moderate diversity, triadic team structures, and R&D maturity. These results provide how policy makers can align collaboration design and evaluation with specific research goals.