The scientific enterprise has long been driven by strong-minded people. Institutions, funding and recognition are still organized around the idea that competition among individuals in a free market of ideas is the best way for research to progress.

Yet, the rise of ‘big science’ has put emphasis on teams than on individuals. Studies have shown that research groups and collaborations, and the culture in which they operateare key to fostering high-quality and impactful science. One analysis of 65 million papers, patents and software products found that teams were likely to generate disruptive science than individuals were (L.Wuetal.Nature566378–382; 2019). Another study found that groups with a collaborative and non-hierarchical culture were likely to be innovative (F.Xuetal.

Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA119e2200927119; 2022).

However, the ways in which universities and researchers are assessed haven’t changed. Genuine scientific and societal transformation not only requires the best scientists but also the best teams. It’s time to evaluate and reward teams, not just individual scientists.

This call to action is a central pillar of Denmark’s presidency of the council of the European Union. It is also the focus of the EU High-Level Conference on Reforming Research Assessment in Copenhagen this week, which I am chairing.

than 300 representatives of European and international universities and funding agencies will discuss the future of global research assessment. They will also chart fresh directions to improve research culture on the basis of quality, trust and collaboration.

The scale of the challenge is clear. Yes, great teams are composed of competent individuals.

But an inclusive, efficient and creative culture is equally important — and that’s challenging to build and measure. Here are some preliminary recommendations for supporting a collaborative culture.

First, funders and university leaders must recognize what makes a strong team.

To establish an environment that supports collaborations, leaders and institutions must foster a clear vision, trust and common values. They should also hire people with good interpersonal skills to promote inclusivity and collegiality in teams, as well as in the day-to-day running of a laboratory.

Second, the scientific community needs to agree on how to evaluate the research culture in a group. An individual’s productivity can be assessed — albeit imperfectly — by the number of publications, citations, awards and grants they obtain. Team performance, including joint problem-solving, collaborative learning and leadership, is harder to assess.