arbiter
JournalsAccount

The Rise, Impact, and Imbalances of Big-Team Psychology

Nicholas A. Coles et al.

Psychological Science2026https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976261433459article
AJG 4*ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

Abstract

The present work evaluates the rise, impact, and imbalances of big-team psychology via an analysis of 3,023,895 articles published in the 21st century. Results indicate that big teams—ranging from 10 to more than 100 authors—are relatively unusual ( n = 49,695) but increasing in popularity. More notably, such collaborations generate unusually high impact in terms of yearly mentions in scholarly articles ( n = 39,788,158), the news ( n = 1,018,639), social media ( n = 5,971,965), and policy documents ( n = 69,959). An examination of country-level sociocultural indicators revealed that first authors, in general, tend to be in regions that are relatively WEIRD: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. However, this imbalance is slightly more pronounced among larger teams. In summary, results suggest that big-team science is an emerging trend in psychology—one that is unevenly deployed across world regions to generate high-impact scientific insights.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976261433459

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{nicholas2026,
  title        = {{The Rise, Impact, and Imbalances of Big-Team Psychology}},
  author       = {Nicholas A. Coles et al.},
  journal      = {Psychological Science},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976261433459},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

The Rise, Impact, and Imbalances of Big-Team Psychology

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.