![\"Coloured](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/d41586-026-02174-4_52970930.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
The size of scientific research teams has increased steadily over time.Credit: twomeows\/Getty<\/p>\n
Few papers in history have had the disruptive impact of James Watson and Francis Crick\u2019s 1953 Nature paper proposing the double-helix structure of DNA1<\/a>. It\u2019s a classic of small-team science; two authors proposing a paradigm-shifting idea that research teams around the world build on for years to come.<\/p>\n But a new analysis of authorship data that has been captured by the Nature Index<\/a> over the past decade shows that small-team science is in decline. In some research fields \u2014 especially the biological and health sciences, in which Watson and Crick made their impact \u2014 solo- and dual-authored papers are increasingly rare. <\/p>\n Across the natural sciences, the proportion of papers in the index with one or two authors declined from 10.8% to 7.1% between 2015 and 2024. Over the same period, big-team science grew rapidly, with the greatest publication growth seen in papers with 11 to 50 authors. Overall, publications in the index with between 3 and 50 authors rose from 88.5% to 92.2%.<\/p>\n Although the Nature Index tracks only a subset of high-quality journals, the findings are consistent with previous studies showing a long-term increase in team size across science (see \u2018Middle ground\u2019). At the beginning of the last century, for instance, most papers were written by one or two scientists2<\/a>. Since the mid-twentieth century, the average size of research teams has grown steadily across most scientific disciplines3<\/a>.<\/p>\n According to Lingfei Wu, an information scientist at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania who studies the effect of factors such as team size on scientific innovation, \u201cThe decline in one- and two-author papers is one of the most stable patterns in science.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Team dynamics<\/p>\n Among the natural-sciences subjects in the Nature Index, biological sciences had the lowest proportion of small-team papers in 2024. One- and two-author publications slipped from 6.1% to 3.8% of biological-science papers between 2015 and 2024, whereas 3\u201350 author papers rose from 93.3% to 95.3%. Chemistry had the second-lowest proportion of small-team papers in 2024, at 4.7% of total chemistry papers, down from 8.2% in 2015.<\/p>\n In the health sciences, which have been included in the Nature Index since 2022, one- and two-author papers have flatlined at a rate of 1%.<\/p>\n The physical sciences is the only subject to have its small-team papers increase in absolute terms (by just over 300 in the 2015\u201324 period). However, they still dropped as a proportion of total physical-sciences papers (14.9% to 9.6%). This could reflect a trend in which small-team papers remain important to the subject, but large-team papers are growing at a much faster rate.<\/p>\n The trend in physical sciences could reflect a broader pattern playing out in the index data: even though small-team science remains productive and, in some areas, has grown slightly in absolute terms, it is being dwarfed by the rapid expansion of research conducted by larger collaborations. As a result, small teams are making up a shrinking share of scientific output \u2014 not because they are disappearing, but because large, multi-author projects are becoming increasingly common and prolific (see \u2018Team size by subject\u2019). <\/p>\n<\/p>\n Global shift<\/p>\n The move away from small-team science probably stems from long-term changes in how research is organized and conducted around the world, according to Wu. \u201cAfter the Second World War, in the United States and then elsewhere, centralized funding agencies were established,\u201d he says. \u201cForming research teams with combined expertise is a relatively easy way to argue for financial support.\u201d <\/p>\n Today, funding systems often explicitly favour bigger teams, says Chaoqun Ni, a metascience researcher at the University of Wisconsin\u2013Madison. \u201cIn the United States, National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health grants encourage interdisciplinary multicentre teams.\u201d <\/p>\n European Union grants also often stipulate cross-border collaboration, says Mike Thelwall, a data-science researcher at the University of Sheffield, UK. <\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/d41586-026-02174-4_52415242.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n