Abstract The growing complexity of modern scientific challenges demands research teams that integrate diverse perspectives, yet the role of academic status diversity—variation in team members' scholarly achievements—remains insufficiently understood. This study aims to bridge this gap by examining the dynamics of academic diversity within research teams and its association with innovation, analyzing more than 17 million articles across 292 fields. We introduce new metrics—academic entropy, academic standard deviation, and academic disparity—to capture the heterogeneity of team members' academic backgrounds. Using a network null model to account for temporal and disciplinary differences, we uncover significant increases in academic diversity, particularly within STEM fields and developed regions, where diversity levels are notably overrepresented. While we find a positive correlation between academic diversity and interdisciplinarity, higher diversity is associated with lower levels of scientific disruption. Teams with greater academic diversity tend to be associated with consolidating existing knowledge rather than producing disruptive innovations that challenge prevailing frameworks. This trend is especially evident in larger teams, where diversity is linked to incremental progress rather than transformative breakthroughs. These findings underscore the need for a balanced approach to promoting diversity in relation to scientific advancement.

Citation data, along with other bibliographic datasets, have long been adopted by the knowledge and data discovery community as an important direction for presenting the validity and effectiveness of proposed algorithms and strategies. Many top computer scientists are also excellent researchers in the science of science. The purpose of this workshop is to bridge the two communities (i.e., the knowledge discovery community and the science of science community) together as the scholarly activities become salient web and social activities that start to generate a ripple effect on broader knowledge discovery communities. This workshop will showcase the current data-driven science of science research by highlighting several studies and constructing a community of researchers to explore questions critical to the future of data-driven science of science, especially a community of data-driven science of science in Data Science so as to facilitate collaboration and inspire innovation. Through discussion on emerging and critical topics in the science of science, this workshop aims to help generate effective solutions for addressing environmental, societal, and technological problems in the scientific community.

Abstract Scientific novelty drives the efforts to invent new vaccines and solutions during the pandemic. First‐time collaboration and international collaboration are two pivotal channels to expand teams' search activities for a broader scope of resources required to address the global challenge, which might facilitate the generation of novel ideas. Our analysis of 98,981 coronavirus papers suggests that scientific novelty measured by the BioBERT model that is pretrained on 29 million PubMed articles, and first‐time collaboration increased after the outbreak of COVID‐19, and international collaboration witnessed a sudden decrease. During COVID‐19, papers with more first‐time collaboration were found to be more novel and international collaboration did not hamper novelty as it had done in the normal periods. The findings suggest the necessity of reaching out for distant resources and the importance of maintaining a collaborative scientific community beyond nationalism during a pandemic.

Abstract Power dynamics influence every aspect of scientific collaboration. Team power dynamics can be measured by team power level and team power hierarchy. Team power level is conceptualized as the average level of the possession of resources, expertise, or decision‐making authorities of a team. Team power hierarchy represents the vertical differences of the possessions of resources in a team. In Science of Science, few studies have looked at scientific collaboration from the perspective of team power dynamics. This research examines how team power dynamics affect team impact to fill the research gap. In this research, all coauthors of one publication are treated as one team. Team power level and team power hierarchy of one team are measured by the mean and Gini index of career age of coauthors in this team. Team impact is quantified by citations of a paper authored by this team. By analyzing over 7.7 million teams from Science (e.g., Computer Science, Physics), Social Sciences (e.g., Sociology, Library & Information Science), and Arts & Humanities (e.g., Art), we find that flat team structure is associated with higher team impact, especially when teams have high team power level. These findings have been repeated in all five disciplines except Art, and are consistent in various types of teams from Computer Science including teams from industry or academia, teams with different gender groups, teams with geographical contrast, and teams with distinct size.