arxiv: 2604.24408 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph

Recognition: unknown

Leadership, Cooperation and Conflicts in Physics -- Research Leaders' Perspective

Bianca Burkert, Isabell M. Welpe, Maike Reimer, Theresa Goerg

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 17:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph

keywords researchconflictsinvolvedconflictleadersoftenqualificationwere

0 comments

The pith

Survey of physics research leaders shows team conflicts are common, centered on respect, behavior and authorship, with informal support most used and conflicts frequently harming productivity while prompting leadership changes.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The study asked leaders running physics research groups about problems that arise in their teams. Nearly all reported conflicts, with the biggest triggers being people not showing respect or being overconfident, behaving in non-collegial ways, and fighting over who gets named on papers. When these issues occurred, leaders turned first to other colleagues at their institution or personal contacts rather than official university offices, which they found less helpful. Most conflicts did not cause serious personal damage or block qualification goals, but they often delayed work or left results unpublished. Many involved people still working toward degrees or qualifications. After experiencing these situations, most leaders said they changed how they manage their teams. The findings link research work tightly to training and certifying new researchers.

Core claim

Conflict in research teams was a near-ubiquitous phenomenon, with the three top issues being lack of respect or overconfidence, non-collegial behaviour and authorship.

Load-bearing premise

Self-reported survey responses from research leaders provide an accurate and unbiased picture of conflict frequency, causes, support sources, and outcomes without significant selection bias or social desirability effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24408 by Bianca Burkert, Isabell M. Welpe, Maike Reimer, Theresa Goerg.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Participants’ characteristics: gender, subfield, institution type and position............ 8 view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Conflict in research teams was a near-ubiquitous phenomenon, with the three top issues being lack of respect or overconfidence, non-collegial behaviour and authorship. Most frequently involved (and perceived as most helpful) were informal sources of support, such as colleagues at the same institution and private contacts. Official institutional bodies were less often involved and often not perceived as helpful. In the majority of conflicts, there was no serious harm done to the research leaders involved, and qualification goals of conflicting parties could be reached. More wide-spread however were damages to research productivity such as delays or unpublished results. About two third of conflicts involved at least one person in a qualification process, demonstrating how inextricably research is linked with qualification, and that conflicts often occur in the complex entanglement of collaborative knowledge production and certification of individual research performance. Satisfaction with conflict development and its final resolution was fairly evenly distributed over the spectrum from complete dissatisfaction to complete satisfaction. Most research leaders changed their leadership practices in response to conflict experiences, showing that conflicts can be an opportunity to learn and grow.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

A straightforward survey showing conflicts are common in physics teams but usually handled informally and without major personal fallout.

read the letter

This paper reports what physics research leaders say about conflicts in their groups. The central finding is that these conflicts are nearly everywhere, led by lack of respect or overconfidence, non-collegial behaviour, and authorship disputes. Informal contacts inside and outside the institution get used most and rated as more helpful than official bodies. Productivity takes the bigger hit through delays and missing outputs, while personal harm and blocked qualifications stay limited. Many conflicts involve people still in training, and most leaders report adjusting their own practices afterward.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents results from a survey of physics research leaders regarding experiences with conflicts in their research teams. It claims that conflicts are a near-ubiquitous phenomenon, with the three most common issues being lack of respect or overconfidence, non-collegial behaviour, and authorship disputes. Informal support sources (colleagues at the same institution and private contacts) are reported as most frequently used and helpful, while official institutional bodies are less involved and often perceived as unhelpful. The majority of conflicts cause no serious harm to the leaders involved and allow qualification goals to be met, but frequently result in damages to research productivity such as delays or unpublished results. About two-thirds of conflicts involve at least one person in a qualification process. Satisfaction with conflict outcomes is evenly distributed, and most leaders report changing their leadership practices as a result.

Significance. If the survey methodology proves robust and representative, the descriptive findings would offer valuable empirical data on conflict dynamics in physics research groups, particularly the entanglement of collaborative research with individual qualification processes and the preference for informal support networks. This could contribute to the sociology of science by documenting patterns that inform leadership training and institutional conflict-resolution policies in academic physics settings.

major comments (2)

[Methods] Methods section: the manuscript provides no information on sample size, response rate, survey distribution method, participant selection criteria, or any statistical procedures used to derive frequencies and rankings. Without these details, the central claim that conflicts are 'near-ubiquitous' cannot be evaluated for selection bias or generalizability to the broader population of physics research leaders.
[Results/Discussion] Results and Discussion: the reliance on self-reported perceptions from research leaders alone leaves open the possibility of social-desirability bias in rankings of conflict causes (e.g., 'lack of respect or overconfidence') and assessments of support-source helpfulness. No triangulation with other data sources or controls for respondent positionality is described, which is load-bearing for the reported prevalence and outcome patterns.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: 'About two third of conflicts' should read 'About two thirds of conflicts' for grammatical accuracy.
[Results] The paper would benefit from explicit discussion of how the three top conflict issues were ranked (e.g., by percentage of respondents selecting them) and whether multiple responses per participant were allowed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We have reviewed the points raised regarding the Methods and Results/Discussion sections and provide point-by-point responses below, indicating planned revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Methods] Methods section: the manuscript provides no information on sample size, response rate, survey distribution method, participant selection criteria, or any statistical procedures used to derive frequencies and rankings. Without these details, the central claim that conflicts are 'near-ubiquitous' cannot be evaluated for selection bias or generalizability to the broader population of physics research leaders.

Authors: We agree that the current Methods section lacks essential details needed to evaluate the survey's robustness and the generalizability of the 'near-ubiquitous' finding. In the revised manuscript, we will substantially expand the Methods section to report the sample size, response rate, survey distribution method (targeted outreach to physics research leaders via institutional and professional networks), participant selection criteria (individuals in leadership roles managing research teams in physics), and the descriptive statistical procedures (frequency counts and rankings) used. These additions will directly address concerns about selection bias and allow readers to assess the findings more rigorously. revision: yes
Referee: [Results/Discussion] Results and Discussion: the reliance on self-reported perceptions from research leaders alone leaves open the possibility of social-desirability bias in rankings of conflict causes (e.g., 'lack of respect or overconfidence') and assessments of support-source helpfulness. No triangulation with other data sources or controls for respondent positionality is described, which is load-bearing for the reported prevalence and outcome patterns.

Authors: We acknowledge the potential for social-desirability bias in any self-reported survey, particularly on topics like conflict causes and support helpfulness. However, the study is explicitly framed as capturing the 'Research Leaders' Perspective' (per the title), making leaders' perceptions the intended focus rather than an objective multi-stakeholder account. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated limitations subsection in the Discussion to explicitly address this bias, its possible effects on the reported rankings, and the absence of triangulation or positionality controls. We will also outline how future work could incorporate additional data sources. We believe the leaders' viewpoint remains a valuable and load-bearing contribution for understanding leadership responses, even with this acknowledged limitation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper reports descriptive findings from a survey of physics research leaders on team conflicts, with all central claims (ubiquity of conflicts, top issues, support sources, outcomes) derived directly from ranked frequencies and percentages in the collected responses. No equations, models, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations exist that could reduce to inputs by construction. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The manuscript presents results as conditional on the sample and instrument without overclaiming generalizability, making the derivation chain self-contained and non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a purely empirical descriptive study. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced. The central assumption is the reliability of self-reported leader perspectives.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Self-reported experiences of research leaders accurately reflect the prevalence, causes, support usage, and impacts of team conflicts.
The entire set of findings rests on survey responses without independent verification from other team members or objective records.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5492 in / 1217 out tokens · 119036 ms · 2026-05-07T17:54:32.225606+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

2 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

von (Ed.) (2018)

https://doi.org/10.2307/jthought.47.2.85 Au, C. von (Ed.) (2018). Führen in der vernetzten virtuellen und realen Welt . Springer Fach- medien Wiesbaden. Baillien, E., Escartín, J., Gross, C., & Zapf, D. (2017). Towards a conceptual and empirical differentiation between workplace bullying and interpersonal conflict. European Journal of Work and Organizatio...

work page doi:10.2307/jthought.47.2.85 2018
[2]

https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-000D-BCEA-8 Wilkesmann, U., & Schmidt, C. J. (Eds.) (2012). Hochschule als Organisation. Organisations- soziologie. Springer VS. Zhao, E. Y., Thatcher, S. M. B., & Jehn, K. A. (2019). Instigating, Engaging in, and Managing Group Conflict: A Review of Literature Addressing the Critical Role of the Leader in Group Confli...

2012