Here we discuss the growing dominance of teams in science. Importantly, this shift toward collaborative work is not unique to fields where experimental challenges are becoming more complex and expensive. Rather, we see a universal rise in team science even in “pencil and paper” disciplines like mathematics and sociology. We find that teams tend to produce more impactful science, garnering more citations than solo-authored work at all points in time and across all disciplines. What has driven the shift toward collaboration in science? The increasing complexity and expense of scientific experimentation forces communities to share resources and knowledge effectively. Additionally, the ever-broadening body of knowledge has made specialization necessary, which means that each person has command of a small piece of a larger puzzle. We also discuss what we call “the death of distance” created by advancing technologies, which has made collaboration easier both among institutions and across international borders. While the advantages of these types of collaboration are clear, there are some potential drawbacks which we detail here.

Here we introduce Part IV, where we will discuss the work at the frontiers of the science of science, the future of the discipline, and how knowledge of the doings of science may change how science is done.

In this chapter we define and detail the Matthew effect, exploring the role that status plays in success. We use the absence and presence of Lord Rayleigh’s authorship on a paper to introduce the idea of reputation signaling, and look at how reputation signaling plays out in randomized control experiments. We then discuss the implications of reputation signaling for both single and double-blind review processes. We find that the Matthew effect applies not just to scientists themselves, but also to their papers through a process known as preferential attachment. To see how an author’s reputation affects the impact of her publications, we look at how her citation patterns deviate from what preferential attachment would predict. We also explore the drivers behind the Matthew effect, asking whether status alone dictates outcomes or whether it reflects inherent talent.

Here we outline our aims for the book and provide a definition for the science of science. We also identify our audience – scientists and students, science administrators, and policymakers, and those already working on science of science research. We explain that the book is structured into four parts: The Science of Career, The Science of Impact, The Science of Collaboration, and an Outlook on the future of the science of science.

We introduce Part II by sharing the story of the LIGO experiment which validated Einstein’s theory of general relativity and which many consider to be the “discovery of the twenty-first century.” While Einstein’s discovery was made by a single scientist, the LIGO experiment involved the contributions of over 1,000 authors. These two discoveries, made 100 years apart, speak to the changing nature of science, where 90% of papers now are written by teams. In Part II we will explore the implications of collaborative work, the benefits and challenges of working in teams, and the factors that help and hinder team effectiveness.

Here we explore peer effects in science, outlining the ways in which scientists affect each other’s outcomes and behavior. In particular, we look at the influence of star scientists on their colleagues, showing that both the productivity of a department and the quality of future faculty increases after a luminary is hired. We detail the negative affect that a star scientist’s death can have on her colleagues, effects which speak to the power of the “invisible college” that binds scientists together in shared interests and ideas. Lastly we outline examples of how changes to the invisible college can have far-reaching impact, demonstrating the highly connected nature of science.

This chapter begins where Simmel and many other social and legal scholars left off. In contrast to many traditional theories of privacy, we argue, as one of us has argued before, that privacy rules and norms are essential to social interaction and generativity. Through primary source research, we suggest that the rules and norms governing information privacy in three knowledge creation contexts – Chatham House, Gordon Research Conferences (“GRC”), and the Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (“BITAG”) – are necessary to develop the kind of trust that is essential for sharing ideas, secrets, and other information. More specifically, when it is part of institutional structures governing knowledge commons, privacy fosters knowledge through a systematic social process. Privacy rules have expressive effects that embed confidentiality norms in the background of institutional participation, which in turn create a sense of community among participants that can both bring in new members and threaten sanctions for misbehavior. Knowledge production, therefore, depends on privacy.

Conceptualizing privacy as information flow rules-in-use constructed within a commons governance arrangement, we adapt the Governing Knowledge Commons (GKC) framework to study the formal and informal governance of information flows. We incorporate Helen Nissenbaum's “privacy as contextual integrity” approach, defining privacy in terms of contextually appropriate flows of personal information. While Nissenbaum's framework treats contextual norms as largely exogenous and emphasizes their normative valence, the GKC framework provides a systematic method to excavate personal information rules-in-use that actually apply in specific situations and interrogate governance mechanisms that shape rules-in-use. After discussing how the GKC framework can enrich privacy research, we explore empirical evidence for contextual integrity as governance within the GKC framework through meta-analysis of previous knowledge commons case studies, revealing three governance patterns within the observed rules-in-use for personal information flow. Our theoretical analysis provides strong justification for a new research agenda using the GKC framework to explore privacy as governance.

The knowledge commons framework, deployed here in a review of the early network of scientific communication known as the Republic of Letters, combines a historical sensibility regarding the character of scientific research and communications with a modern approach to analyzing institutions for knowledge governance. Distinctions and intersections between public purposes and privacy interests are highlighted. Lessons from revisiting the Republic of Letters as knowledge commons may be useful in advancing contemporary discussions of Open Science.

Internet of things (IoT) adds Internet connectivity to familiar devices, such as toasters and televisions, data flows no longer align with existing user expectations about these products. Studying techno-social change in the IoT context involves measuring what people expect of IoT device information flows as well as how these expectations and underlying social norms emerge and change. We want to design and govern technology in ways that adhere to people's expectations of privacy and other important ethical considerations. To do so effectively, we need to understand how techno-social changes in the environment (context) can lead to subtle shifts in information flows. CI is a useful framework for identifying and evaluating such shifts as a gauge for knowledge commons governance. This chapter explores key aspects behind privacy norm formation and evolution.