Academic Integrity
Radio Silence from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons on Report of Blatant Plagiarism in Their ‘Journal of Neurosurgery’ Publication
08 October 2024
BY SCOTT M. GRAFFIUS | ScottGraffius.com
If there's an update after this article is published, the information will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section.
Introduction
Plagiarism, defined as ‘to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own: use (another's production) without crediting the source’ (source: Merriam-Webster), damages trust, credibility, and the value of original content. The theft of intellectual property distorts the scholarly record and results in misinformation. It often violates copyright as well.
Publications must respond decisively to plagiarism reports by swiftly acknowledging complaints, conducting thorough investigations, and taking appropriate actions such as retractions.
Quiz Question
The visual at the top of this article depicts a quiz related to a real situation. Here's the question:
You discovered blatant plagiarism in a Journal of Neurosurgery publication of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. You reported it—with detailed specifics and indisputable evidence—to the authors, the editors, and the publisher. What should happen next (within five business days)?
🔘 A. The publisher or one or more of the authors or editors replies with, “Thank you for alerting us about the violation; we’re looking into it.”
🔘 B. The publisher or one or more of the authors or editors challenges you to a duel to defend their honor.
🔘 C. Neither the publisher nor any of the authors or editors responds. Radio silence.
Quiz Answer
The question is about what should happen. For that reason, the correct answer about what should happen is: 'A. The publisher or one or more of the authors or editors replies with, "Thank you for alerting us about the violation; we're looking into it."
When publications receive a report of plagiarism, they should promptly acknowledge receipt of the report by responding within no longer than five business days. This action demonstrates transparency, professionalism, and a commitment to maintaining the integrity of the academic record. Conversely, not expeditiously acknowledging receipt of the report conveys a lack of transparency, a lack of professionalism, and a lack of commitment to integrity.
Radio Silence by the Publisher, the Editors, and the Authors
It would be nice if the quiz above was just a hypothetical/thought experiment. Unfortunately, it's related to the real situation where Scott M. Graffius discovered blatant plagiarism in a Journal of Neurosurgery publication of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and notified the authors, the editors, and the publisher of the violation on 24 September 2024.
As mentioned earlier, publishers should promptly acknowledge receipt of plagiarism reports by responding within no longer than five business days. As of the date of this article (8 October 2024), 10 business days (14 calendar days) have elapsed since the violation was reported. And the publisher, the editors, and the authors maintain radio silence.
Plagiarism is bad. By not acknowledging receipt of the report, the publisher, the editors, and the authors made the bad situation worst. And the publisher (JNS Publishing Group / American Association of Neurological Surgeons) has not yet taken action such as retraction or removal of the infringing material.
It is imperative that the publisher demonstrate—through their actions—a commitment to upholding the highest standards of ethics and intellectual property rights. The publisher must take immediate and decisive action such as retracting or removing the infringing content. Otherwise, the publisher is knowingly endorsing, permitting or otherwise allowing ongoing misinformation and the perpetual violation of Graffius' intellectual property.
Details follow. If there's an update on this consequential matter after this article is published, the information will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section.
Details on the Plagiarism
On 24 September 2024, Scott M. Graffius observed plagiarism in a Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) publication of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. That same day, Graffius wrote to the publisher, the editors, and the authors of the violating material. His email was titled, 'JNS paper plagiarized and damaged the marketability and value of Scott M. Graffius’ copyrighted property.' It contained detailed specifics and indisputable evidence. Saved as a PDF, Graffius' email is 19 pages.
As a high-level overview, thumbnails of the 19-page email are shown below. Then, select 'readable' excerpts are provided.
Excerpts from Graffius' 19-page email follow. They're shown in italic font.
Here's an excerpt from the introduction section of Graffius' email.
Authors of a Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) paper plagiarized Graffius’ copyrighted ‘Phases of Team Development’ property, constituting a profound and disgraceful breach of professional ethics, moral standards, and Graffius’ intellectual property rights. Here are the specifics on the publication.
Here's an excerpt from the section of the email with background information.
Informed by the research of Bruce W. Tuckman, Ph.D. and Mary Ann C. Jensen, over 100 subsequent studies, and Scott M. Graffius’ first-hand professional experience with, and analysis of, team leadership and performance, Graffius created his ‘Phases of Team Development.’ It’s a unique perspective on the five phases of team development — Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning — and it’s inclusive of the characteristics/features/traits and strategies for each phase.
Graffius’ ‘Phases of Team Development’ intellectual property is registered with the United States Copyright Office.
The integrated text from Graffius’ copyrighted property applies in this case.
Graffius initially developed his intellectual property in 2008, and he periodically refreshes it. An authorized example of his copyrighted property applicable in this case (2022 edition) is here: https://www.scottgraffius.com/blog/files/teams- 2022.html .
Here's more from the section of the email with background information.
Graffius’ copyright ownership details are integrated into and appear on his copyrighted property. Specifically, it reads: “Copyright © 2008-2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. For permission requests, contact scott@scottgraffius.com.”
Additionally, his respective article includes this: “To request permission to use the 'Phases of Team Development' visual, contact Scott M. Graffius. If approved, high resolution JPG and PNG image files will be provided, subject to terms and conditions.”
And also this: “© Copyright 2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.”
Conference organizers, businesses, professional associations, government agencies, and universities around the world engage Graffius to deliver compelling talks and workshops. To date, he’s presented sessions at 91 conferences and other events across 25 countries, including:
Graffius’ ‘Phases of Team Development’ intellectual property is central and key to many of those sessions. His rate card and a listing of his engagements are at https://scottgraffius.com/resources/Exceptional-PPM-and-PMO-Solutions- Rate-Card-for-2024-2025-v24071607.pdf and https://scottgraffius.com/publicspeaker.html, respectively.
With an authorization/license from Graffius, many organizations around the world have featured and used his copyrighted ‘Phases of Team Development’ work. Select examples include:
The following excerpts are from the section of the email detailing the violation.
Again, Graffius’ copyright ownership details and permission request information are clearly noted.
Authors (Whitney E. Muhlestein, MD; Kate W. C. Chang, MA, MS; Denise Justice, OTRL, Sarah Johnson, MS, OTRL; Shawn Brown; and Miriana Popadich, MSN, NP-C) of the JNS paper ('Developing interdisciplinary research teams in neurosurgery: key elements to success in brachial plexus and peripheral nerve surgery') did not request nor receive permission to use Graffius’ copyrighted property.
Nevertheless, the authors used Graffius’ copyrighted property in their JNS article: they plagiarized Graffius’ work, damaging the marketability and value of his intellectual property.
The following excerpts from the email provide some side-by-side examples of Graffius' copyrighted property and the plagiarism in the JNS publication.
The exhibit below also shows some examples of the blatant plagiarism.
The following excerpts are from the conclusion section of Graffius' email.
Graffius’ copyright ownership details are integrated into and appear on his copyrighted property. Specifically, it reads: “Copyright © 2008-2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. For permission requests, contact scott@scottgraffius.com.” Additionally, his article includes this: “To request permission to use the 'Phases of Team Development' visual, contact Scott M. Graffius. If approved, high resolution JPG and PNG image files will be provided, subject to terms and conditions.” And also this: “© Copyright 2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.”
Authors (Whitney E. Muhlestein, MD; Kate W. C. Chang, MA, MS; Denise Justice, OTRL, Sarah Johnson, MS, OTRL; Shawn Brown; and Miriana Popadich, MSN, NP-C) of the JNS paper (Developing interdisciplinary research teams in neurosurgery: key elements to success in brachial plexus and peripheral nerve surgery) did not request nor receive permission to use Graffius’ copyrighted property.
The authors of the JNS paper used Graffius’ copyrighted property, including plagiarizing it. The JNS paper did not attribute material to Graffius through citation or otherwise. By doing so, the authors are wrongly leading others to falsely believe that they are the author and owner of Graffius’ respective copyrighted content.
The JNS authors’ plagiarism damaged the marketability and value of Graffius’ copyrighted property.
The aforementioned actions of the authors of the JNS paper are a disgraceful breach of professional ethics, moral standards, and Graffius’ intellectual property rights.
The following excerpt is also from the conclusion section of Graffius' email.
Graffius maintains, enforces, and protects his copyright and other intellectual property rights. He is consulting with an IP attorney in Los Angeles. Graffius reserves his rights in this disturbing and consequential matter.
The preceding provided excerpts of key content—not the full transcript—of Graffius' email.
Authors of the Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) paper blatantly plagiarized Graffius’ copyrighted ‘Phases of Team Development’ property, constituting a profound and disgraceful breach of professional ethics, moral standards, and Graffius’ intellectual property rights.
It is shocking that neither the publisher nor any of the editors or authors have responded to Graffius' report on the violation. By not acknowledging receipt of the plagiarism report, the publisher signals a lack of transparency, a lack of professionalism, and a lack of commitment to integrity.
It is imperative that the publisher, JNS Publishing Group / the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, demonstrate—through their actions—a commitment to upholding the highest standards of ethics and intellectual property rights. The publisher must take immediate and decisive action such as retracting or removing the infringing content. Otherwise, they risk losing their credibility and the trust placed in them by scientific and academic communities.
If there's an update after this article is published, the information will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section.
Read on to learn:
About the Journal of Neurosurgery
The Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) is a monthly peer-reviewed medical journal covering all aspects of neurosurgery. It is published by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the editor-in-chief is James Rutka. The JNS brands itself as the world’s leading journal on neurosurgery and the official journal of the AANS.
Visit the JNS website to learn more.
Note: Scott M. Graffius included (among others) James Rutka, AANS Editor-in-Chief, on the 24 September 2024 email detailing the plagiarism violation.
About the American Association of Neurological Surgeons
The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) is dedicated to advancing neurological surgery. The AANS says that through rigorous education, groundbreaking research, robust advocacy, and the advancement of outcomes science, it strives to ensure the highest standards of patient care are met and exceeded. Katie O. Orrico is Chief Executive Officer of the AANS.
Visit the AANS website to learn more.
Note: Scott M. Graffius included (among others) Katie O. Orrico, AANS CEO, on the 24 September 2024 email detailing the plagiarism violation.
About Scott M. Graffius
Scott M. Graffius is a global leader in agile project management, an expert on teamwork tradecraft, an authority on temporal dynamics on social media platforms, a creator, a consultant, a trainer, an award-winning author, and an international public speaker.
He's generated over $1.9 billion of business value in aggregate for Global Fortune 500 businesses and other organizations he's served — as a consultant through Exceptional PPM and PMO Solutions and Exceptional Agility, and as a member of staff at organizations. Businesses and industries range from consumer products to advanced technology (including AI, R&D), e-commerce, music, streaming/OTT video, television, film, video games, financial services, government, and more.
Graffius and content from his books (Agile Scrum and Agile Transformation), talks, workshops, and more have been featured and used by businesses, professional associations, governments, and universities around the world. Examples include Adobe, American Management Association, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Bayer, Boston University, Broadcom, Cisco, Deimos Aerospace, DevOps Institute, EU's European Commission, Ford Motor Company, Hasso Plattner Institute Germany, IEEE, Johns Hopkins University, London South Bank University, Microsoft, National Academy of Sciences, New Zealand Government, Oracle, Project Management Institute, Torrens University Australia, UC San Diego, TBS Switzerland, UK Sports Institute, University of Galway Ireland, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. National Park Service, U.S. Tennis Association, Virginia Tech, Warsaw University of Technology, Yale University, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, and many others.
He delights audiences around the world with dynamic and engaging talks and workshops. He's presented sessions at 91 conferences and other events across 25 countries. Visit here to learn more and here to ask Scott to speak at your event.
About Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions
Shifting customer needs are common in today's marketplace. Businesses must be adaptive and responsive to change while delivering an exceptional customer experience to be competitive.
There are a variety of frameworks supporting the development of products and services, and most approaches fall into one of two broad categories: traditional or agile. Traditional practices such as waterfall engage sequential development, while agile involves iterative and incremental deliverables. Organizations are increasingly embracing agile to manage projects, and best meet their business needs of rapid response to change, fast delivery speed, and more.
With clear and easy to follow step-by-step instructions, Scott M. Graffius's award-winning Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions helps the reader:
Hailed by Literary Titan as “the book highlights the versatility of Scrum beautifully.”
Winner of 17 first place awards.
Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions is available in paperback and ebook/Kindle in the United States and around the world. Some links by country follow.
About Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change
Thriving in today's marketplace frequently depends on making a transformation to become more agile. Those successful in the transition enjoy faster delivery speed and ROI, higher satisfaction, continuous improvement, and additional benefits.
Based on actual events, Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change provides a quick (60-90 minute) read about a successful agile transformation at a multinational entertainment and media company, told from the author's perspective as an agile coach.
The award-winning book by Scott M. Graffius is available in paperback and ebook/Kindle in the United States and around the world. Some links by country follow.
References/Sources
The following is a list of material on publishing standards and procedures. Some cover the reporting and handling of plagiarism.
How to Cite This Article
Graffius, Scott M. (2024, October 8). Radio Silence from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons on Report of Blatant Plagiarism in Their ‘Journal of Neurosurgery’ Publication. Available at: https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/aans-jns-publication.html. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25837.40160
Post-Publication Notes
If there are any supplements or updates to this article after the date of publication, they will appear here.
Update on 11 October 2024
As a recap, Graffius’ 24 September 2024 report provided indisputable proof of plagiarism. Graffius emailed the detailed report to the publisher, the editors, and the authors. However, weeks passed with radio silence. There was not even an acknowledgement of receipt of the report.
Graffius maintains, enforces, and protects his copyright and other intellectual property rights. The publisher’s non-response signaled that they were knowingly endorsing, permitting or otherwise allowing ongoing misinformation and the perpetual violation of Graffius' intellectual property. For those reasons, Graffius expanded communications on this consequential matter. Here's one example (of many).
On 11 October 2024, the publisher sent their first response to Graffius. Here’s an excerpt from the publisher’s email (it appears in italic font, within quotation marks):
“Thank you for your email and your patience as we have looked into this matter. We have concluded our investigation. The author did indeed unintentionally include unattributed references to your work. An erratum and article correction by the author are in process. Once submitted to us, time to publication is usually 2-3 weeks. I would expect this process to be concluded in less than 4 weeks’ time. I will send you a link to the errata and corrected paper for your files once they have been published online.”
Again, the above is an excerpt from—not a full transcript of—the publisher’s email to Graffius.
The publisher used the term “unintentionally.” That term, whether referencing a ridiculous excuse of the plagiarizing authors or otherwise, is counter-indicated by the undeniable facts in this serious matter and should not be used. For that reason, Graffius responded to the publisher’s email the same day. Here’s an excerpt from Graffius’ email (it appears in italic font, within quotation marks):
“Your response warrants a reply. So here it is.
I will not re-state my full 24 September 2024* report of the indisputable facts. But here’s an excerpt:
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “High motivation, trust, and empathy”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “High motivation, trust, and empathy”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Individuals defer to team needs”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Individuals defer to team needs”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Effectively producing deliverables”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Effectively producing deliverables”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Consistent performance”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Consistent performance”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Demonstrations of interdependence”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Demonstrations of interdependence”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Purpose and goals are well-understood”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Purpose and goals are well-understood”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “More confident”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “More confidence”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Members are engaged and supportive”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Members are engaged and supportive”
My copyright ownership details are integrated into and appear on my copyrighted ‘Phases of Team Development’ property. Specifically, it reads: ‘Copyright © 2008-2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. For permission requests, contact scott@scottgraffius.com.’ Additionally, my corresponding publication includes this: ‘© Copyright 2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.’
Authors (Whitney E. Muhlestein, MD; Kate W. C. Chang, MA, MS; Denise Justice, OTRL, Sarah Johnson, MS, OTRL; Shawn Brown; and Miriana Popadich, MSN, NP-C) of the JNS paper ('Developing interdisciplinary research teams in neurosurgery: key elements to success in brachial plexus and peripheral nerve surgery') did not request nor receive permission to use my copyrighted property.
Plagiarism is defined as ‘to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own: use (another's production) without crediting the source’ (source: Merriam-Webster). It infringes on the intellectual property rights of others, results in misinformation, and often violates copyright.
The authors of the JNS paper used my copyrighted property, including plagiarizing it. Most of their plagiarism was word-for-word use of my intellectual property.
The JNS paper did not attribute material to me through citation or otherwise. By doing so, the authors are wrongly leading others to falsely believe that they are the author and owner of my respective copyrighted content.
So, these author(s)—who have been proven to be plagiarizers—claim the violation was done “unintentionally”? They unintentionally took my copyrighted property and used it (mostly word-for-word) unintentionally, and unintentionally failed to credit me on their respective diagram, and also unintentionally failed to cite me in the references section of the paper? The authors are insulting others with their excuse. “Unintentionally” is a ridiculous and desperate attempt to ‘minimize’ or ‘spin’ their blatant violation. I reject it entirely and so should you.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see the proven plagiarizers take a nice turn and demonstrate integrity, sincerity, and remorse?! They could have, and should have, simply said that what they did was wrong. However, by asserting “unintentionally,” the authors are demonstrating an ongoing lack of integrity, sincerity, and remorse. I must say, I’m greatly concerned.
Maybe the authors are procedurally allowed to (falsely) claim whatever they want, including “unintentionally,” in their response to the charges. However, if “unintentionally” (or a similar term) appears in the official record—whether in an erratum, retraction, or other action—it must be noted that “unintentionally” (or a similar term) is the claim of the authors of the JNS paper. It is vital that the that it is made clear that “unintentionally” (or a similar operative term) is not the conclusion or position of others. Here, 'others' includes me. Given the facts and without bias, ‘others’ certainty also includes you, the Journal of Neurosurgery, JNS Publishing Group, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, and others.
Plagiarism is a profound and disgraceful breach of professional ethics, moral standards, and intellectual property rights. The authors of the JNS paper damaged the marketability and value of my copyrighted property.
I maintain, enforce, and protect my copyright and other intellectual property rights. As mentioned earlier, I am consulting with an IP attorney in Los Angeles. I reserve my rights in this disturbing and consequential matter.
Given the serious nature of this issue, please reply with a short confirmation that you received this communication.”
Again, the above is an excerpt from—not a full transcript of—Graffius’ email to the publisher.
The publisher replied the same day with (it appears in italic font, within quotation marks):
“That word was solely mine, and not a reflection of what will be conveyed. You are correct that it is irrelevant to the discussion. Apologies for the miscommunication. Please be assured we do not take this situation lightly. Acknowledging receipt of your correspondence with this email. I will be back in touch soon.”
Again, the above is an excerpt from—not a full transcript of—the publisher’s email to Graffius.
Any further updates will appear here.
Update on 12 November 2024
On 12 November 2024, Graffius sent a follow up email to the publisher. Here's an excerpt from the message (it appears in italic font, within quotation marks):
"Chief Publications Officer Gillian Shasby,
Until the infringing article is appropriately addressed, it continues to spread misinformation and violate my intellectual property rights.
I provided notification of the infringement on 24 September (which may have appeared a few minutes into the following day). That was 49 days ago.
On 11 October, I was informed that: “... expect this process to be concluded in less than 4 weeks’ time.” That was 32 days (4.6 weeks) ago.
Why hasn’t this been addressed?
Exactly when will it be addressed?
I expressly reserve all rights in this troubling, damaging, and consequential matter.
Sincerely,
Scott M. Graffius"
Any further updates will appear here.
Update on 15 November 2024
Chief Publications Officer Gillian Shasby sent an email to Graffius. The email reported that:
After the changes have been implemented or if there are other updates, the information will be added to this Post-Publication Notes section.
Update on 20 December 2024
This matter was resolved on 20 December 2024.
The publisher published an Erratum.
Graffius published new article.
Copyright
Copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Content on this site—including text, images, videos, and data—may not be used for training or input into any artificial intelligence, machine learning, or automatized learning systems, or published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.
The short link for this article is https://bit.ly/aans-jns
If there's an update after this article is published, the information will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section.
Introduction
Plagiarism, defined as ‘to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own: use (another's production) without crediting the source’ (source: Merriam-Webster), damages trust, credibility, and the value of original content. The theft of intellectual property distorts the scholarly record and results in misinformation. It often violates copyright as well.
Publications must respond decisively to plagiarism reports by swiftly acknowledging complaints, conducting thorough investigations, and taking appropriate actions such as retractions.
Quiz Question
The visual at the top of this article depicts a quiz related to a real situation. Here's the question:
You discovered blatant plagiarism in a Journal of Neurosurgery publication of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. You reported it—with detailed specifics and indisputable evidence—to the authors, the editors, and the publisher. What should happen next (within five business days)?
🔘 A. The publisher or one or more of the authors or editors replies with, “Thank you for alerting us about the violation; we’re looking into it.”
🔘 B. The publisher or one or more of the authors or editors challenges you to a duel to defend their honor.
🔘 C. Neither the publisher nor any of the authors or editors responds. Radio silence.
Quiz Answer
The question is about what should happen. For that reason, the correct answer about what should happen is: 'A. The publisher or one or more of the authors or editors replies with, "Thank you for alerting us about the violation; we're looking into it."
When publications receive a report of plagiarism, they should promptly acknowledge receipt of the report by responding within no longer than five business days. This action demonstrates transparency, professionalism, and a commitment to maintaining the integrity of the academic record. Conversely, not expeditiously acknowledging receipt of the report conveys a lack of transparency, a lack of professionalism, and a lack of commitment to integrity.
Radio Silence by the Publisher, the Editors, and the Authors
It would be nice if the quiz above was just a hypothetical/thought experiment. Unfortunately, it's related to the real situation where Scott M. Graffius discovered blatant plagiarism in a Journal of Neurosurgery publication of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and notified the authors, the editors, and the publisher of the violation on 24 September 2024.
As mentioned earlier, publishers should promptly acknowledge receipt of plagiarism reports by responding within no longer than five business days. As of the date of this article (8 October 2024), 10 business days (14 calendar days) have elapsed since the violation was reported. And the publisher, the editors, and the authors maintain radio silence.
Plagiarism is bad. By not acknowledging receipt of the report, the publisher, the editors, and the authors made the bad situation worst. And the publisher (JNS Publishing Group / American Association of Neurological Surgeons) has not yet taken action such as retraction or removal of the infringing material.
It is imperative that the publisher demonstrate—through their actions—a commitment to upholding the highest standards of ethics and intellectual property rights. The publisher must take immediate and decisive action such as retracting or removing the infringing content. Otherwise, the publisher is knowingly endorsing, permitting or otherwise allowing ongoing misinformation and the perpetual violation of Graffius' intellectual property.
Details follow. If there's an update on this consequential matter after this article is published, the information will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section.
Details on the Plagiarism
On 24 September 2024, Scott M. Graffius observed plagiarism in a Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) publication of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. That same day, Graffius wrote to the publisher, the editors, and the authors of the violating material. His email was titled, 'JNS paper plagiarized and damaged the marketability and value of Scott M. Graffius’ copyrighted property.' It contained detailed specifics and indisputable evidence. Saved as a PDF, Graffius' email is 19 pages.
As a high-level overview, thumbnails of the 19-page email are shown below. Then, select 'readable' excerpts are provided.
Excerpts from Graffius' 19-page email follow. They're shown in italic font.
Here's an excerpt from the introduction section of Graffius' email.
Authors of a Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) paper plagiarized Graffius’ copyrighted ‘Phases of Team Development’ property, constituting a profound and disgraceful breach of professional ethics, moral standards, and Graffius’ intellectual property rights. Here are the specifics on the publication.
- Publication: Journal of Neurosurgery
- Publisher: JNS Publishing Group, American Association of Neurological Surgeons
- Paper: Developing interdisciplinary research teams in neurosurgery: key elements to success in brachial plexus and peripheral nerve surgery
- Authors: Whitney E. Muhlestein, MD; Kate W. C. Chang, MA, MS; Denise Justice, OTRL, Sarah Johnson, MS, OTRL; Shawn Brown; and Miriana Popadich, MSN, NP-C
- Publication Date: 12 May 2023
- Volume/Issue: Volume 139: Issue 6
- Page Range: 1552-1559
- DOI link: https://doi.org/10.3171/2023.4.JNS222254
Here's an excerpt from the section of the email with background information.
Informed by the research of Bruce W. Tuckman, Ph.D. and Mary Ann C. Jensen, over 100 subsequent studies, and Scott M. Graffius’ first-hand professional experience with, and analysis of, team leadership and performance, Graffius created his ‘Phases of Team Development.’ It’s a unique perspective on the five phases of team development — Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning — and it’s inclusive of the characteristics/features/traits and strategies for each phase.
Graffius’ ‘Phases of Team Development’ intellectual property is registered with the United States Copyright Office.
The integrated text from Graffius’ copyrighted property applies in this case.
Graffius initially developed his intellectual property in 2008, and he periodically refreshes it. An authorized example of his copyrighted property applicable in this case (2022 edition) is here: https://www.scottgraffius.com/blog/files/teams- 2022.html .
Here's more from the section of the email with background information.
Graffius’ copyright ownership details are integrated into and appear on his copyrighted property. Specifically, it reads: “Copyright © 2008-2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. For permission requests, contact scott@scottgraffius.com.”
Additionally, his respective article includes this: “To request permission to use the 'Phases of Team Development' visual, contact Scott M. Graffius. If approved, high resolution JPG and PNG image files will be provided, subject to terms and conditions.”
And also this: “© Copyright 2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.”
Conference organizers, businesses, professional associations, government agencies, and universities around the world engage Graffius to deliver compelling talks and workshops. To date, he’s presented sessions at 91 conferences and other events across 25 countries, including:
- Armenia,
- Australia,
- Brazil,
- Canada,
- Czech Republic,
- Finland,
- France,
- Germany,
- Greece,
- Hong Kong,
- Hungary,
- India,
- Ireland,
- Lithuania,
- Luxembourg,
- Nepal,
- Netherlands,
- New Zealand,
- Norway,
- Romania,
- Sweden,
- Switzerland,
- United Arab Emirates,
- United Kingdom,
- and the United States.
Graffius’ ‘Phases of Team Development’ intellectual property is central and key to many of those sessions. His rate card and a listing of his engagements are at https://scottgraffius.com/resources/Exceptional-PPM-and-PMO-Solutions- Rate-Card-for-2024-2025-v24071607.pdf and https://scottgraffius.com/publicspeaker.html, respectively.
With an authorization/license from Graffius, many organizations around the world have featured and used his copyrighted ‘Phases of Team Development’ work. Select examples include:
- Adobe,
- American Management Association,
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute,
- Boston University,
- Broadcom,
- Cisco,
- Deimos Aerospace,
- DevOps Institute,
- Erste Group Bank AG (Austria),
- FINAT,
- Ford Motor Company,
- FSU College of Medicine,
- Hasso Plattner Institute (Germany),
- IEEE,
- Johns Hopkins University,
- LeadingEng,
- London South Bank University,
- Manufacturers Alliance,
- Microsoft,
- New Zealand Government,
- Oracle,
- Royal Australasian College of Physicians,
- TBS Switzerland,
- Torrens University (Australia),
- Tufts University,
- U.S. National Park Service,
- U.S. Tennis Association,
- UC San Diego,
- UK Sports Institute,
- University of Galway (Ireland),
- Victorian Institute of Technology (Australia),
- Virginia Tech,
- Warsaw University,
- Western Sydney University (Australia),
- World Resources Institute,
- Yale University,
- ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences,
- and many others.
The following excerpts are from the section of the email detailing the violation.
Again, Graffius’ copyright ownership details and permission request information are clearly noted.
Authors (Whitney E. Muhlestein, MD; Kate W. C. Chang, MA, MS; Denise Justice, OTRL, Sarah Johnson, MS, OTRL; Shawn Brown; and Miriana Popadich, MSN, NP-C) of the JNS paper ('Developing interdisciplinary research teams in neurosurgery: key elements to success in brachial plexus and peripheral nerve surgery') did not request nor receive permission to use Graffius’ copyrighted property.
Nevertheless, the authors used Graffius’ copyrighted property in their JNS article: they plagiarized Graffius’ work, damaging the marketability and value of his intellectual property.
The following excerpts from the email provide some side-by-side examples of Graffius' copyrighted property and the plagiarism in the JNS publication.
- Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “High motivation, trust, and empathy”
- Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “High motivation, trust, and empathy”
- Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Individuals defer to team needs”
- Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Individuals defer to team needs”
- Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Effectively producing deliverables”
- Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Effectively producing deliverables”
- Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Consistent performance”
- Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Consistent performance”
- Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Demonstrations of interdependence”
- Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Demonstrations of interdependence”
- Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Purpose and goals are well-understood”
- Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Purpose and goals are well-understood”
- Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “More confident”
- Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “More confidence”
- Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Members are engaged and supportive”
- Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Members are engaged and supportive”
The exhibit below also shows some examples of the blatant plagiarism.
The following excerpts are from the conclusion section of Graffius' email.
Graffius’ copyright ownership details are integrated into and appear on his copyrighted property. Specifically, it reads: “Copyright © 2008-2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. For permission requests, contact scott@scottgraffius.com.” Additionally, his article includes this: “To request permission to use the 'Phases of Team Development' visual, contact Scott M. Graffius. If approved, high resolution JPG and PNG image files will be provided, subject to terms and conditions.” And also this: “© Copyright 2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.”
Authors (Whitney E. Muhlestein, MD; Kate W. C. Chang, MA, MS; Denise Justice, OTRL, Sarah Johnson, MS, OTRL; Shawn Brown; and Miriana Popadich, MSN, NP-C) of the JNS paper (Developing interdisciplinary research teams in neurosurgery: key elements to success in brachial plexus and peripheral nerve surgery) did not request nor receive permission to use Graffius’ copyrighted property.
The authors of the JNS paper used Graffius’ copyrighted property, including plagiarizing it. The JNS paper did not attribute material to Graffius through citation or otherwise. By doing so, the authors are wrongly leading others to falsely believe that they are the author and owner of Graffius’ respective copyrighted content.
The JNS authors’ plagiarism damaged the marketability and value of Graffius’ copyrighted property.
The aforementioned actions of the authors of the JNS paper are a disgraceful breach of professional ethics, moral standards, and Graffius’ intellectual property rights.
The following excerpt is also from the conclusion section of Graffius' email.
Graffius maintains, enforces, and protects his copyright and other intellectual property rights. He is consulting with an IP attorney in Los Angeles. Graffius reserves his rights in this disturbing and consequential matter.
The preceding provided excerpts of key content—not the full transcript—of Graffius' email.
Authors of the Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) paper blatantly plagiarized Graffius’ copyrighted ‘Phases of Team Development’ property, constituting a profound and disgraceful breach of professional ethics, moral standards, and Graffius’ intellectual property rights.
It is shocking that neither the publisher nor any of the editors or authors have responded to Graffius' report on the violation. By not acknowledging receipt of the plagiarism report, the publisher signals a lack of transparency, a lack of professionalism, and a lack of commitment to integrity.
It is imperative that the publisher, JNS Publishing Group / the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, demonstrate—through their actions—a commitment to upholding the highest standards of ethics and intellectual property rights. The publisher must take immediate and decisive action such as retracting or removing the infringing content. Otherwise, they risk losing their credibility and the trust placed in them by scientific and academic communities.
If there's an update after this article is published, the information will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section.
Read on to learn:
- About the Journal of Neurosurgery,
- About the American Association of Neurological Surgeons,
- About Scott M. Graffius,
- References/Sources,
- How to Cite This Article,
- Post-Publication Notes,
- and more.
About the Journal of Neurosurgery
The Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) is a monthly peer-reviewed medical journal covering all aspects of neurosurgery. It is published by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the editor-in-chief is James Rutka. The JNS brands itself as the world’s leading journal on neurosurgery and the official journal of the AANS.
Visit the JNS website to learn more.
Note: Scott M. Graffius included (among others) James Rutka, AANS Editor-in-Chief, on the 24 September 2024 email detailing the plagiarism violation.
About the American Association of Neurological Surgeons
The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) is dedicated to advancing neurological surgery. The AANS says that through rigorous education, groundbreaking research, robust advocacy, and the advancement of outcomes science, it strives to ensure the highest standards of patient care are met and exceeded. Katie O. Orrico is Chief Executive Officer of the AANS.
Visit the AANS website to learn more.
Note: Scott M. Graffius included (among others) Katie O. Orrico, AANS CEO, on the 24 September 2024 email detailing the plagiarism violation.
About Scott M. Graffius
Scott M. Graffius is a global leader in agile project management, an expert on teamwork tradecraft, an authority on temporal dynamics on social media platforms, a creator, a consultant, a trainer, an award-winning author, and an international public speaker.
He's generated over $1.9 billion of business value in aggregate for Global Fortune 500 businesses and other organizations he's served — as a consultant through Exceptional PPM and PMO Solutions and Exceptional Agility, and as a member of staff at organizations. Businesses and industries range from consumer products to advanced technology (including AI, R&D), e-commerce, music, streaming/OTT video, television, film, video games, financial services, government, and more.
Graffius and content from his books (Agile Scrum and Agile Transformation), talks, workshops, and more have been featured and used by businesses, professional associations, governments, and universities around the world. Examples include Adobe, American Management Association, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Bayer, Boston University, Broadcom, Cisco, Deimos Aerospace, DevOps Institute, EU's European Commission, Ford Motor Company, Hasso Plattner Institute Germany, IEEE, Johns Hopkins University, London South Bank University, Microsoft, National Academy of Sciences, New Zealand Government, Oracle, Project Management Institute, Torrens University Australia, UC San Diego, TBS Switzerland, UK Sports Institute, University of Galway Ireland, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. National Park Service, U.S. Tennis Association, Virginia Tech, Warsaw University of Technology, Yale University, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, and many others.
He delights audiences around the world with dynamic and engaging talks and workshops. He's presented sessions at 91 conferences and other events across 25 countries. Visit here to learn more and here to ask Scott to speak at your event.
About Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions
Shifting customer needs are common in today's marketplace. Businesses must be adaptive and responsive to change while delivering an exceptional customer experience to be competitive.
There are a variety of frameworks supporting the development of products and services, and most approaches fall into one of two broad categories: traditional or agile. Traditional practices such as waterfall engage sequential development, while agile involves iterative and incremental deliverables. Organizations are increasingly embracing agile to manage projects, and best meet their business needs of rapid response to change, fast delivery speed, and more.
With clear and easy to follow step-by-step instructions, Scott M. Graffius's award-winning Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions helps the reader:
- Implement and use the most popular agile framework―Scrum;
- Deliver products in short cycles with rapid adaptation to change, fast time-to-market, and continuous improvement; and
- Support innovation and drive competitive advantage.
Hailed by Literary Titan as “the book highlights the versatility of Scrum beautifully.”
Winner of 17 first place awards.
Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions is available in paperback and ebook/Kindle in the United States and around the world. Some links by country follow.
- 🇧🇷 Brazil
- 🇨🇦 Canada
- 🇨🇿 Czech Republic
- 🇩🇰 Denmark
- 🇫🇮 Finland
- 🇫🇷 France
- 🇩🇪 Germany
- 🇬🇷 Greece
- 🇭🇺 Hungary
- 🇮🇳 India
- 🇮🇪 Ireland
- 🇮🇱 Israel
- 🇮🇹 Italy
- 🇯🇵 Japan
- 🇱🇺 Luxembourg
- 🇲🇽 Mexico
- 🇳🇱 Netherlands
- 🇳🇿 New Zealand
- 🇳🇴 Norway
- 🇪🇸 Spain
- 🇸🇪 Sweden
- 🇨🇭 Switzerland
- 🇦🇪 UAE
- 🇬🇧 United Kingdom
- 🇺🇸 United States
About Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change
Thriving in today's marketplace frequently depends on making a transformation to become more agile. Those successful in the transition enjoy faster delivery speed and ROI, higher satisfaction, continuous improvement, and additional benefits.
Based on actual events, Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change provides a quick (60-90 minute) read about a successful agile transformation at a multinational entertainment and media company, told from the author's perspective as an agile coach.
The award-winning book by Scott M. Graffius is available in paperback and ebook/Kindle in the United States and around the world. Some links by country follow.
- 🇦🇺 Australia
- 🇦🇹 Austria
- 🇧🇷 Brazil
- 🇨🇦 Canada
- 🇨🇿 Czech Republic
- 🇩🇰 Denmark
- 🇫🇮 Finland
- 🇫🇷 France
- 🇩🇪 Germany
- 🇬🇷 Greece
- 🇮🇳 India
- 🇮🇪 Ireland
- 🇯🇵 Japan
- 🇱🇺 Luxembourg
- 🇲🇽 Mexico
- 🇳🇱 Netherlands
- 🇳🇿 New Zealand
- 🇪🇸 Spain
- 🇸🇪 Sweden
- 🇨🇭 Switzerland
- 🇦🇪 United Arab Emirates
- 🇬🇧 United Kingdom
- 🇺🇸 United States
References/Sources
The following is a list of material on publishing standards and procedures. Some cover the reporting and handling of plagiarism.
- Alter, Alexandra (2019, September 22). It’s a Fact: Mistakes are Embarrassing the Publishing Industry. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/business/publishing-books-errors.html.
- American Psychological Association (2019, November). Correction Notices. Available at: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/research-publication/correction-notices.
- Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) (2018, November 15). ACM Publications Policy on the Withdrawal, Correction, Retraction, and Removal of Works from ACM Publications and ACM DL. Available at: https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/retraction-policy.
- Cambridge University Press (n.d.). Publishing Ethics. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/flow/information/journal-policies/publishing-ethics.
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (n.d.). Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/postpublication.
- Elsevier (n.d.). Policy and Best practice: Errata & Corrigenda. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/editor/perk/policy-and-best-practice-errata-and-corrigenda.
- Emerald Publishing (n.d.). Article Withdrawal & Correction. Available at: https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/publish-with-us/author-policies/article-withdrawal-correction.
- Faust, Jessica (2007, October 3). Typos and Errors After Publication. Available at: https://bookendsliterary.com/typos-and-errors-after-publication.
- Graffius, Scott M. (2024, March 22). The Protocol for Reporting an Error to an Author or Publisher. Available at: https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/error-reporting.html. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18830.98883.
- Graffius, Scott M. (2021, November 10). An Error Was Introduced Into the Seventh Edition of 'A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK)'. Available at: https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/pmbok7.html.
- Idunn (n.d.). Publishing and Research Ethics Policy. Available at: https://www.idunn.no/info/publiseringsetikk.
- IEEE (n.d.). Publishing Ethics: Guidelines and Policies: Post-Publication Policies. Available at: https://books.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/book-publishing-at-ieee/publishing-ethics/guidelines-and-policies/post-publication-policies.
- Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) (n.d.). Guidelines for Ethical Behavior in Publishing. Available at: https://pubsonline.informs.org/page/opre/guidelines-for-ethical-behavior-in-publishing.
- IntechOpen (n.d.). Retraction and Correction Policy. Available at: https://www.intechopen.com/page/retraction-and-correction-policy.
- Marasović, Tea; Utrobiĉić, Ana; and Maruŝić, Ana (2018, March 31). Transparency of Retracting and Replacing Articles. The Lancet, 391 (10127): 1244-1245.
- Nature (n.d.). Editorial and Publishing Policies. Available at: https://www.nature.com/srep/journal-policies/editorial-policies.
- O’Reilly Media (n.d.). Errata for Java in a Nutshell. Available at: https://www.oreilly.com/catalog/errata.csp?isbn=0636920030775.
- Palgrave Macmillan (n.d.). Corrections and Retractions. Available at: https://www.palgrave.com/gp/editorial-policies/corrections-and-retractions.
- Pearson Education / InformIT (n.d.). Contact Us: Submit Errata. Available at: https://www.informit.com/about/contact_us/index.aspx?ContactUs_Topics_Partners_id=9d39709c-c911-4c96-ac2c-2c5a22d68ba9.
- Project Management Institute (PMI) (n.d.). PMI Standards Program Comment Form. Available at: https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/pmbok-standards/pmi-standards-program-comment-form.pdf.
- Project Management Institute (PMI) (n.d.). Standards Errata Sheets. Available at: https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/pmbok/errata-sheets.
- Public Library of Science (PLOS) (n.d.). Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/corrections-and-retractions.
- SAE International (n.d.). ARINC Standard – Errata Report Template. Available at: https://wcm14.sae.org/site/binaries/content/assets/itc/content/arinc/errata-form.docx [note: selecting the link will download the file].
- Sage Publications (n.d.). Sage Corrections and Retractions Policy. Available at: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/sage-corrections-and-retractions-policy.
- Science Publishing Group (n.d.). Ethical Guidelines. Available at: https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/information/ethical-guidelines.
- Springer (n.d.). Editorial Policies: Corrections and Retractions. Available at: https://www.springer.com/gp/editorial-policies/corrections-and-retractions.
- Taylor & Francis (n.d.). Publishing Ethics for Journal Editors: FAQs. Available at: https://editorresources.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-ethics-for-editors/publishing-ethics-faqs.
- Ubiquity Press (n.d.). Correction and Retraction Policy. Available at: https://ubiquitypress.com/site/corrections.
- Warner, Brooke (2019, April 26). How to Publish a Perfect Book. Available at: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/authors/pw-select/article/79902-how-to-publish-a-perfect-book.html.
- Wiley (n.d.). Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics. Available at: https://authorservices.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/index.html.
- Wiley Author Services (n.d.). Wiley's Policy for Handling Retractions, Withdrawals, and Expressions of Concern. Available at: https://authorservices.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/retractions-and-expressions-of-concern.html.
- World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (n.d.). Managing Intellectual Property in the Book Publishing Industry. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/868/wipo_pub_868.pdf.
How to Cite This Article
Graffius, Scott M. (2024, October 8). Radio Silence from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons on Report of Blatant Plagiarism in Their ‘Journal of Neurosurgery’ Publication. Available at: https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/aans-jns-publication.html. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25837.40160
Post-Publication Notes
If there are any supplements or updates to this article after the date of publication, they will appear here.
Update on 11 October 2024
As a recap, Graffius’ 24 September 2024 report provided indisputable proof of plagiarism. Graffius emailed the detailed report to the publisher, the editors, and the authors. However, weeks passed with radio silence. There was not even an acknowledgement of receipt of the report.
Graffius maintains, enforces, and protects his copyright and other intellectual property rights. The publisher’s non-response signaled that they were knowingly endorsing, permitting or otherwise allowing ongoing misinformation and the perpetual violation of Graffius' intellectual property. For those reasons, Graffius expanded communications on this consequential matter. Here's one example (of many).
On 11 October 2024, the publisher sent their first response to Graffius. Here’s an excerpt from the publisher’s email (it appears in italic font, within quotation marks):
“Thank you for your email and your patience as we have looked into this matter. We have concluded our investigation. The author did indeed unintentionally include unattributed references to your work. An erratum and article correction by the author are in process. Once submitted to us, time to publication is usually 2-3 weeks. I would expect this process to be concluded in less than 4 weeks’ time. I will send you a link to the errata and corrected paper for your files once they have been published online.”
Again, the above is an excerpt from—not a full transcript of—the publisher’s email to Graffius.
The publisher used the term “unintentionally.” That term, whether referencing a ridiculous excuse of the plagiarizing authors or otherwise, is counter-indicated by the undeniable facts in this serious matter and should not be used. For that reason, Graffius responded to the publisher’s email the same day. Here’s an excerpt from Graffius’ email (it appears in italic font, within quotation marks):
“Your response warrants a reply. So here it is.
I will not re-state my full 24 September 2024* report of the indisputable facts. But here’s an excerpt:
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “High motivation, trust, and empathy”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “High motivation, trust, and empathy”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Individuals defer to team needs”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Individuals defer to team needs”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Effectively producing deliverables”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Effectively producing deliverables”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Consistent performance”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Consistent performance”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Demonstrations of interdependence”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Demonstrations of interdependence”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Purpose and goals are well-understood”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Purpose and goals are well-understood”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “More confident”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “More confidence”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Members are engaged and supportive”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Members are engaged and supportive”
My copyright ownership details are integrated into and appear on my copyrighted ‘Phases of Team Development’ property. Specifically, it reads: ‘Copyright © 2008-2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. For permission requests, contact scott@scottgraffius.com.’ Additionally, my corresponding publication includes this: ‘© Copyright 2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.’
Authors (Whitney E. Muhlestein, MD; Kate W. C. Chang, MA, MS; Denise Justice, OTRL, Sarah Johnson, MS, OTRL; Shawn Brown; and Miriana Popadich, MSN, NP-C) of the JNS paper ('Developing interdisciplinary research teams in neurosurgery: key elements to success in brachial plexus and peripheral nerve surgery') did not request nor receive permission to use my copyrighted property.
Plagiarism is defined as ‘to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own: use (another's production) without crediting the source’ (source: Merriam-Webster). It infringes on the intellectual property rights of others, results in misinformation, and often violates copyright.
The authors of the JNS paper used my copyrighted property, including plagiarizing it. Most of their plagiarism was word-for-word use of my intellectual property.
The JNS paper did not attribute material to me through citation or otherwise. By doing so, the authors are wrongly leading others to falsely believe that they are the author and owner of my respective copyrighted content.
So, these author(s)—who have been proven to be plagiarizers—claim the violation was done “unintentionally”? They unintentionally took my copyrighted property and used it (mostly word-for-word) unintentionally, and unintentionally failed to credit me on their respective diagram, and also unintentionally failed to cite me in the references section of the paper? The authors are insulting others with their excuse. “Unintentionally” is a ridiculous and desperate attempt to ‘minimize’ or ‘spin’ their blatant violation. I reject it entirely and so should you.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see the proven plagiarizers take a nice turn and demonstrate integrity, sincerity, and remorse?! They could have, and should have, simply said that what they did was wrong. However, by asserting “unintentionally,” the authors are demonstrating an ongoing lack of integrity, sincerity, and remorse. I must say, I’m greatly concerned.
Maybe the authors are procedurally allowed to (falsely) claim whatever they want, including “unintentionally,” in their response to the charges. However, if “unintentionally” (or a similar term) appears in the official record—whether in an erratum, retraction, or other action—it must be noted that “unintentionally” (or a similar term) is the claim of the authors of the JNS paper. It is vital that the that it is made clear that “unintentionally” (or a similar operative term) is not the conclusion or position of others. Here, 'others' includes me. Given the facts and without bias, ‘others’ certainty also includes you, the Journal of Neurosurgery, JNS Publishing Group, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, and others.
Plagiarism is a profound and disgraceful breach of professional ethics, moral standards, and intellectual property rights. The authors of the JNS paper damaged the marketability and value of my copyrighted property.
I maintain, enforce, and protect my copyright and other intellectual property rights. As mentioned earlier, I am consulting with an IP attorney in Los Angeles. I reserve my rights in this disturbing and consequential matter.
Given the serious nature of this issue, please reply with a short confirmation that you received this communication.”
Again, the above is an excerpt from—not a full transcript of—Graffius’ email to the publisher.
The publisher replied the same day with (it appears in italic font, within quotation marks):
“That word was solely mine, and not a reflection of what will be conveyed. You are correct that it is irrelevant to the discussion. Apologies for the miscommunication. Please be assured we do not take this situation lightly. Acknowledging receipt of your correspondence with this email. I will be back in touch soon.”
Again, the above is an excerpt from—not a full transcript of—the publisher’s email to Graffius.
Any further updates will appear here.
Update on 12 November 2024
On 12 November 2024, Graffius sent a follow up email to the publisher. Here's an excerpt from the message (it appears in italic font, within quotation marks):
"Chief Publications Officer Gillian Shasby,
Until the infringing article is appropriately addressed, it continues to spread misinformation and violate my intellectual property rights.
I provided notification of the infringement on 24 September (which may have appeared a few minutes into the following day). That was 49 days ago.
On 11 October, I was informed that: “... expect this process to be concluded in less than 4 weeks’ time.” That was 32 days (4.6 weeks) ago.
Why hasn’t this been addressed?
Exactly when will it be addressed?
I expressly reserve all rights in this troubling, damaging, and consequential matter.
Sincerely,
Scott M. Graffius"
Any further updates will appear here.
Update on 15 November 2024
Chief Publications Officer Gillian Shasby sent an email to Graffius. The email reported that:
- The publisher will rectify the current lack of attribution and correct the scientific record by updating the legend to Figure 3 and add Graffius’ work to the References.
- The publisher will publish an Erratum, stating that permission was not received and proper attribution was not given for the use of copyrighted material in Figure 3 of the paper and that permission has now been received and correctly attributed, and will include a link to the corrected paper. The Erratum will be deposited to PubMed and Crossref.
- The publisher will correct the paper and upload it to replace the current version. A note will appear within the corrected paper, informing the reader of the change that has been made and linking to the Erratum. All deposited versions (PubMed, CrossRef) will be replaced with the corrected paper. This process is in accordance with best practices for scientific publication.
After the changes have been implemented or if there are other updates, the information will be added to this Post-Publication Notes section.
Update on 20 December 2024
This matter was resolved on 20 December 2024.
The publisher published an Erratum.
Graffius published new article.
Copyright
Copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Content on this site—including text, images, videos, and data—may not be used for training or input into any artificial intelligence, machine learning, or automatized learning systems, or published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.
The short link for this article is https://bit.ly/aans-jns
A Critical Analysis of "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" and Its Use of Scott M. Graffius' Research
14 October 2026
BY SCOTT M. GRAFFIUS | ScottGraffius.com
Recommended Citation
Graffius, S. M. (2026, October 14). A Critical Analysis of "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" and Its Use of Scott M. Graffius' Research. ScottGraffius.com. https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/critical-analysis-of-five-core-themes-of-intentional-team-formation.html
About This Article
Supplements or updates after publication appear in the Post-Publication Notes section at the end of the article.
Source information and links for materials cited are provided in the References section.
"Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation," published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (Springer Nature), examines a cross-disciplinary team formed during the COVID-19 pandemic to develop a grant proposal. Based on that experience, the authors identify five themes they recommend teams address: Team Development, Effective Communication, Perspective Alignment, Team Management, and Project Workflow. Spoiler: The paper has many issues.
"Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" features Scott M. Graffius' research. However, its description of Graffius' work is inaccurate, and the citation is invalid. For those and other reasons, and to proactively clarify any potential misunderstandings, Graffius provides the following objective, evidence-based assessment of the paper, and he does not endorse the paper.
1. Problems With References and the Reference List
References should direct readers to identifiable sources that support the claims for which they are cited. The paper falls short on both counts. Select examples illustrate the problem.
The paper cites a RAND Corporation report, "On Distributed Communications: Summary Overview" (attributed to Baran, 2018), to support a claim that team members expanded their collaborations beyond the project. The RAND report concerns distributed communications and the development of resilient communication networks. It does not document expanded collaboration among the team members or substantiate the paper’s claims about team science and grant-writing networks.
The paper cites Tuckman and Jensen’s 1977 work on group development in connection with the proposition that scientific alignment develops through the divergence and convergence of ideas. The paper does not explain how the cited work supports this specific proposition. Without that connection, the reference does not establish the claim for which it is offered.
The reference attributed to Graffius is incorrect. The error is delineated in point 10.
2. The Evidence Is Limited and Non-Comparative
The quantitative evidence consists of four surveys of team members, with 21–36 respondents per survey, analyzed using what the paper calls univariate descriptive statistics, alongside a small network analysis.
The study reports no comparison team, no independent baseline against which to assess the intervention, no inferential statistical analysis, and no reported effect sizes or confidence intervals. The respondents were members of the team whose process was being evaluated. Some had also helped design or implement that process.
Those data can describe participants' reported experiences. They cannot, on their own, establish that the framework caused improvements, that it outperforms other approaches, or that the findings generalize to other teams.
The paper presents the five themes (Team Development, Effective Communication, Perspective Alignment, Team Management, and Project Workflow) as essential targets for teams. A single case can generate useful hypotheses and practical lessons, but it does not provide a sound basis for declaring a set of themes necessary or effective across settings.
The study’s descriptive evidence is not equivalent to validation. The paper does not demonstrate that its framework improves team performance.
3. The Central Constructs Were Not Adequately Measured
The paper places psychological safety, mutual trust, and respect near the center of its argument. It asserts that aligning contributions and expectations through these conditions helps teams achieve their goals.
Yet the paper does not report adequate validated measures of these central constructs. Instead, it relies on selected agreement items and network diagrams, then interprets some observed behaviors as evidence of psychological safety.
That's a substantial gap between the measurement and the claim. A network diagram may show who reported learning from whom or who was identified as a leader. It does not, by itself, establish that participants felt psychologically safe, trusted one another, or experienced mutual respect.
The paper's limitations section acknowledges that antecedent conditions were not measured directly. Its abstract and conclusion nevertheless use language that presents relationships involving these conditions as findings of the study.
The authors need to distinguish between concepts that inform their interpretation and variables their study actually measured. The paper does not make this distinction consistently, leaving insufficient empirical evidence to establish that its conclusions about key constructs are supported by the measurements.
4. Causal Claims Without a Causal Design
The paper suggests that its approaches produced positive outcomes. The design does not establish that conclusion.
Consider the reported growth in connections among team members. People brought together to work on the same grant proposal have an obvious reason to develop new working relationships: they are collaborating on a shared objective. That change could occur without the particular framework or interventions described in the paper.
The paper's conclusion states that the team significantly extended its networks, yet the paper does not report a statistical significance test supporting that claim. An increase in a reported count does not, by itself, establish statistical significance. If the authors intended "significantly" in its statistical sense, the paper does not provide the reported analysis needed to substantiate that interpretation.
The authors may reasonably report that participants described new connections or that the network diagrams contain more reported ties after team formation. Those are descriptive observations. They do not establish that the intervention caused the change.
Causal claims require evidence capable of distinguishing the proposed explanation from plausible alternatives. The study does not do that.
5. The Team Counts and Survey Denominators Need Reconciliation
The paper describes a final team of 25 members and reports 39 members at one point in the project. Its ethics statement separately refers to an original early-phase team of 44 people. The paper does not clearly reconcile these different team-size figures. The four reported survey denominators were 39, 33, 25, and 27.
There may be reasonable explanations for these different figures. Membership may have changed over time, and not every survey need have been administered to the same group. The paper should nevertheless provide a clear account of who was on the team at each stage, who received each survey, and how many people responded.
As presented, the figures do not form a readily reconciled account of team membership and participation.
Attrition also deserves more attention. The paper reports that some individuals who left the team early felt they had gained or strengthened team and people skills. However, it does not clearly explain how former team members were included in, or excluded from, the final survey, or how their experiences were accounted for in the findings.
A change from an original 44-person team to a final team of 25 is not a trivial detail in a study of intentional team formation. The paper identifies several reasons for departures or reduced engagement, including competing commitments, personal circumstances, pandemic fatigue, and perceived lack of fit as the project evolved. However, it does not clearly reconcile the different team-size figures or sufficiently explain how membership changes affected the study's assessments and findings.
The conclusions should account for that uncertainty. Findings drawn largely from those who remained may not represent the experiences of the entire group.
6. The Qualitative Analysis Is Not Sufficiently Documented
The paper states that the five themes emerged when the core author team coded the qualitative data. It provides too little information for readers to evaluate that process. The paper does not adequately explain the coding procedure, identify the number of coders, describe the codebook, explain how disagreements were handled, or specify the volume of qualitative material analyzed. The underlying qualitative data are not available for readers to inspect.
The paper also says that some recommendations draw on facilitators’ experience. That experience may be useful, but it raises a question the authors should address: how much did the five themes emerge from participants' data, and how much reflected frameworks or assumptions the facilitators brought to the project?
The themes overlap with established work on team science and team management. The paper should explain more clearly what is novel about them and how the data support that contribution.
Qualitative analysis can produce valuable findings without following a single prescribed procedure. It still requires sufficient transparency for readers to understand how researchers moved from source material to codes, from codes to themes, and from themes to recommendations. The paper provides only a limited account of that analytical process, making it difficult for readers to assess how the reported themes were derived from the underlying data.
7. The Authors Evaluated a Process in Which They Participated
The paper's evaluation raises questions about independence. All authors were members of the team or contracted team-science facilitators, and some also served on the proposal's leadership team. The team-science professionals hired to support the project participated in the process under evaluation, and some co-authored the paper. The paper declares no competing interests, while several cited works were also co-authored by members of the author team. These circumstances do not automatically invalidate the study. They do, however, heighten the importance of explaining how the evaluation was conducted, how potential bias was managed, and what evidence would have counted as an unsuccessful outcome.
The grant proposal was not funded. The authors acknowledge that outcome but emphasize multiple metrics of success and maintain that the process was nevertheless successful. There is nothing inherently wrong with identifying benefits beyond a grant award. Teams may develop skills, strengthen relationships, and generate useful ideas even when a proposal is unsuccessful. The concern is whether those additional benefits provide sufficient evidence to validate the process, particularly without clearly specified criteria for success, a systematic evaluation, or adequate safeguards against self-assessment bias.
When the people who designed and implemented a framework also determine that it worked, the assessment needs safeguards against self-confirmation. The paper does not adequately demonstrate such safeguards. Consequently, the authors' favorable interpretation is difficult to distinguish from their own assessment of the work, particularly because the paper does not sufficiently establish how potential bias was managed or how the reported evidence was used to evaluate success.
The ethics disclosure also deserves attention. The authors report that participant recruitment, consent, and data collection preceded the institutional review board (IRB) determination. They explain that the activities were initially conducted as a team assessment rather than as research, and that the decision to publish arose later. Written permission to use de-identified survey data for manuscript development was subsequently sought from participants. These circumstances warrant consideration alongside the study’s methods, consent arrangements, and the authors’ account of why prospective IRB review was not required.
8. The Recommendations Go Beyond What Was Tested
The paper's section on cross-disciplinary team applications describes the five themes as "particularly valuable" for five types of teams, including teams forming in virtual environments, large multi-institutional consortia, and teams in high-stakes or high-uncertainty contexts.
The authors attribute these broader recommendations in part to facilitators’ experience. Such experience can inform a proposal, but it does not establish that the framework has been tested or shown to work in all the settings listed.
The paper would be stronger if it identified these applications as hypotheses or practitioner recommendations for future evaluation. As written, the language sometimes presents extrapolations as established findings.
9. Editorial Errors
The paper has editorial problems. For example, the Figure 6 caption gives a response scale as "strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor agree, agree, or strongly disagree." The labels are internally inconsistent: the middle category is malformed, the "strongly disagree" endpoint is repeated, and “strongly agree” is absent.
Elsewhere, the paper refers to "a tenant of psychological safety" where "tenet" is intended.
10. The Citation of Graffius’ Work Is Incorrect as Presented
For context and clarity, information on Graffius' work is presented below. Issues with the "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" paper follow it.
The "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" paper states: "Graffius (2024) updates Tuckman and Jensen’s (1977) framework, noting limited practical evidence and strategies specifically for the Forming stage." Immediately before this statement, the authors note, "… studies still flag the team formation stage as a critical but under-explored period." Immediately after the sentence about Graffius, they state, "… demonstrates unexplored dynamics in initial collaboration interaction." However, the paper's characterization of Graffius' work is incorrect. The Forming phase is neither unexplored nor under-explored.
The paper's reference list gives the following citation:
Graffius S (2024) Revisiting Tuckman: evidence-based strategies for the forming stage of team development. J Leadersh Organ Stud 31(1):5–16.
The citation is invalid:
As summarized above, Graffius' "Phases of Team Development" has been used and cited by publications and others worldwide. Based on context, the 2024 submission date of the "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" paper, and its reference to Graffius' 2024 work, the correct citation would be:
Graffius, S. M. (2024, January 5). Phases of Team Development: 2024 Update. ScottGraffius.com. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28629.40168
"Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" documents one team's experience and proposes lessons for other teams. It may offer useful ideas, but it does not establish that its five themes are necessary, that the framework improves team performance, or that its broader recommendations are empirically validated. The study is a single, unreplicated case based largely on internal self-reports, without a comparison group or adequate measurement of several central constructs. Broader claims require clear operational definitions, appropriate measures, transparent analytical procedures, a reconciled account of team membership and survey participation, and research designs capable of testing outcomes.
The paper’s conclusions are further undermined by causal claims unsupported by the study design, network interpretations that exceed the reported analysis, inconsistent accounts of team membership, insufficiently transparent qualitative procedures, and other methodological and reporting issues. The authors also evaluate a process in which they participated and judge it successful despite the grant proposal’s failure to secure funding, without sufficiently establishing safeguards against self-confirmation. The paper mischaracterizes Scott M. Graffius' work and it provides an invalid citation.
Readers should treat the paper’s findings with caution. Graffius does not endorse the paper.
Brennan, A. N., Rollinson, C. R., Love, H., Schulz, A. N., Reidy, B., Grossman, J. J., Dickmann, E. M., Fisher, E. R., McCormack, L., Richardson, A. D., LaMontagne, J., Helmus, M. R., & Li, D. (2026, September 29). Five core themes of intentional team formation. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-09246-w
Graffius, S. M. (2024, January 5). Phases of Team Development: 2024 Update. ScottGraffius.com. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28629.40168
Graffius, S. M. (2026, January 3). Scott M. Graffius' Phases of Team Development - Applied to Human Teams and Human-AI Teams: 2026 Update. ScottGraffius.com. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18184.89601
The authors of "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" and their affiliations, as listed in the paper, are:
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications is a peer-reviewed, fully open-access journal published by Springer Nature. Launched in 2015 as Palgrave Communications, it adopted its current name in June 2020. The journal publishes research across the humanities, social sciences, and behavioural sciences, including interdisciplinary scholarship using theoretical, qualitative, quantitative, and methodological approaches. Its stated editorial commitments include rigorous peer review, robust research, and high editorial and ethical standards. Articles are published online and made freely accessible to readers. The journal’s broad scope encompasses psychology, sociology, management, communication, education, and complex networks.
Springer Nature is a global research, educational, and professional publisher formed in 2015 through the combination of Nature Publishing Group, Macmillan Education, and Springer Science+Business Media. Its publishing portfolio includes scholarly journals, academic books, and research resources spanning science, technology, medicine, the humanities, and the social sciences. The company supports researchers, educators, students, and professionals through its publishing platforms and related services. Springer Nature also maintains publishing policies addressing research integrity, editorial standards, and publication ethics. It publishes Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, the journal examined in this article.
Scott M. Graffius is a technology leader, researcher, award-winning author, practitioner, consultant, thought leader, and international public speaker specializing in AI, Agile, project/program/portfolio management (PPPM), PMO leadership, and teamwork tradecraft. His work explores the intersection of human ingenuity and emerging technology, with a strong practitioner voice grounded in research, experimentation, and experience. His focus includes innovation, organizational performance, and the evolving practice of teamwork, including the "exotic team dynamics" that emerge when people collaborate with advanced artificial intelligence (agentic, autonomous, or autopoietic AI). Graffius has delivered more than $3.1 billion in business value for Fortune 500 companies and other organizations spanning technology, entertainment and media, financial services, healthcare, government, and other industries.
Businesses, professional associations, government agencies, universities, publications, and media outlets use Graffius and his work. Examples include Adobe, Bayer, Boston University, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Ford, Gartner, Harvard Medical School, IEEE, Innovation Project Management, Johns Hopkins University, Microsoft, MSN, National Academy of Sciences, Oracle, Pinterest Inc., Project Management Institute, UC San Diego, Verizon, Yale University, and others.
The following sections highlight his experience, leadership, contributions, research, and enduring influence across industries and institutions worldwide.
Experience
Graffius heads the professional services firm Exceptional PPM and PMO Solutions, along with its subsidiary Exceptional Agility. These consultancies offer strategic and tactical advisory, training, embedded expertise, and consulting services to the public, private, and government sectors. They help organizations enhance their capabilities and results in agile, project management, program management, portfolio management, and enterprise PMO leadership, supporting innovation and driving competitive advantage. The consultancies confidently back services with a Delighted Client Guarantee™.
Graffius is a former VP of project management with a publicly traded provider of diverse consumer products and services over the Internet. Before that, he ran and supervised the delivery of projects and programs in public and private organizations with businesses ranging from e-commerce to advanced technology products and services, retail, manufacturing, entertainment and media, and more.
He has experience with consumer, business, reseller, government, and international markets.
Additional information is on LinkedIn.
Award-Winning Author
Graffius has authored three books.
Graffius' first book, Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions, earned 17 awards. It provides a practical, step-by-step guide to Scrum, enabling teams to deliver products in short cycles with rapid adaptation, fast time-to-market, and continuous improvement—which supports innovation and drives competitive advantage.
Additional information on Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions is here.
His second book, Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change, was named one of the best Scrum books of all time by BookAuthority. It tells the compelling story of an entertainment company's agile transformation—offering lessons that apply across industries.
Additional information on Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change is here.
Agile Protocol: The Transformation Ultimatum, is his third book—and his first work of fiction.
It's a fast-paced satirical story by that dismantles corporate Agile cosplay and other forms of "fake Agile" while delivering practical insights, actionable guidance, and proven practices for real-world Agile transformation success.
Packed with humor, quirky characters, sharp commentary on corporate culture and workplace absurdities, and actionable tips, it’s a must-read for Scrum Masters, Product Owners, Agile Coaches, Agile Project Managers, and other professionals interested in Agile project management and enterprise agility.
Additional information on Agile Protocol: The Transformation Ultimatum is here.
International Public Speaker
Organizations worldwide engage Graffius to present on technology (including AI), Agile, project management, program management, portfolio management, and enterprise PMO leadership. He crafts and delivers unique and compelling talks and workshops.
Graffius has conducted 99 sessions across 25 countries. Select examples of events include Agile Trends Gov, BSides (Newcastle Upon Tyne), Conf42 Quantum Computing, DevDays Europe, DevOps Institute, DevOpsDays (Geneva), Frug’Agile, IEEE, Microsoft, Scottish Summit, Scrum Alliance RSG (Nepal), Techstars, and W Love Games International Video Game Development Conference (Helsinki), Future of Work and Advanced AI (Paris, France), and more.
With an average rating of 4.82 (on a scale of 1-5), sessions are highly valued.
The request form is here.
Thought Leadership and Influence
Prominent businesses, professional associations, government agencies, and universities have showcased Graffius and his contributions—spanning his books, talks, workshops, and beyond. Select examples include:
Graffius has played a key role in the Project Management Institute (PMI) in developing professional standards. He was a member of multiple teams that authored, reviewed, and produced:
He was also a subject matter expert reviewer of content for the PMI’s Congress. Beyond the PMI, Graffius also served as a member of the review team for two of the Scrum Alliance’s Global Scrum Gatherings.
Authority on Teamwork Tradecraft
Graffius is a renowned and highly-cited authority on teamwork tradecraft. Informed by the research of Bruce W. Tuckman and Mary Ann C. Jensen, over 150 subsequent studies, and Graffius' first-hand professional experience with, and analysis of, team leadership and performance, Graffius created his "Phases of Team Development" intellectual property as a unique perspective and visual conveying the five phases of team development.
First introduced in 2008 and periodically updated, his work provides a diagnostic and strategic guide for navigating team dynamics. It provides actionable insights for leaders across industries to develop high-performance teams.
Its adoption by esteemed organizations—such as Yale University, IEEE, Cisco, Microsoft, Ford, Oracle, Broadcom, the U.S. National Park Service, and the Journal of Neurosurgery, among others—highlights its utility and value, solidifying its status as an indispensable resource for elevating team performance and driving organizational excellence.
In 2026, Graffius added human-AI teamwork—including the "exotic team dynamics" which emerge when advanced AI collaborates as a teammate—to his "Phases of Team Development." The 2026 edition is here.
Expert on Temporal Dynamics on Social Media Platforms
Graffius is also an authority on temporal dynamics on social media platforms. His "Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts" research—first published in 2018 and updated annually—delivers a precise quantitative analysis of post longevity across digital platforms, utilizing advanced statistical techniques to determine mean half-life with precision. It establishes a solid empirical base, effectively highlighting the ephemeral nature of content within social media ecosystems.
Referenced and applied by leading entities—such as Fast Company, GoDaddy, Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume), Ministère de la Culture, Pinterest Inc., PNAS, and Telecommunications Policy, among others—his research exemplifies methodological rigor and sustained significance in the field of digital informatics.
The 2026 edition of Graffius "Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts" research is here.
Education and Professional Certifications
Graffius has a bachelor’s degree in psychology with a focus in Human Factors. He holds eight professional certifications:
He is an active member of the Scrum Alliance, the Project Management Institute (PMI), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
Advancing AI, Agile, and Project/PMO Management
Scott M. Graffius continues to advance the fields of AI, Agile, and project/program/portfolio management (PPPM), and PMO leadership. Businesses and other organizations leverage Graffius’ insights to drive their success.
Graffius has generated over $3.1 billion in business value for Fortune 500 companies and other organizations served. Put that track record to work for you. For speaking engagements, use the request form; for other inquiries, email him.
Connect with and follow Scott on LinkedIn, X, YouTube, Facebook, Bluesky, Mastodon, and ResearchGate.
Read more.
Meta CTO Called the AI Reorganization “Atrocious” — What Went Wrong and the Lessons for Human-AI Teams
A Critical Analysis of "AI and Quantum Computers Will Be Frenemies"
A Supplement to Graffius' Phases of Team Development: Exploring the Original, Data-Based Curvature for the Performance Trajectory
Scott M. Graffius Speaking on Strategic Leadership at Silicon Valley Chapter of the Project Management Institute
AI Hallucinations, Deception, and Unauthorized Agency: The Spectrum of AI Trust Failures
A Critical Analysis of "The Social Cost of an AI Teammate: How an Artificial Teammate Reshapes Human-Human Communication in Small-Team Decision-Making"
Journal of Marketing Cites Scott M. Graffius' Research on the Half-Life of Social Media
The Evolution of Pair Programming and the Rise of Exotic Team Dynamics
Number 1 University in England for Student Satisfaction Features Scott M. Graffius' "Phases of Team Development"
Royal Australasian College of Physicians Licenses Scott M. Graffius' "Phases of Team Development" Intellectual Property on Teamwork Tradecraft
Exotic Team Dynamics: How Advanced AI Teammates Are Unlocking New Levels of Innovation, Performance, and Success
A Critical Analysis of "Platform-Specific Data Decay Patterns: A Comparative Study of Twitter, Reddit, and TikTok" and Its Reference to Research by Scott M. Graffius
Round Square Global Educational Network Features Scott M. Graffius’ Phases of Team Development
Meta's Muse Missed the Mark: Hollywood’s Win Against Big Tech on AI Consent and Likeness Rights
Scott M. Graffius Contributed to Seven Project Management Institute (PMI) Standards
Quantum Computing, Advanced AI Acceleration, and the Rise of Exotic Team Dynamics in Human-AI Teams
Ohio State University Course Features Scott M. Graffius' "Phases of Team Development"
Questions About Integrity at UNC Chapel Hill
Scrum Isn’t Just for Coding
Book on Generative and Agentic AI Cites Scott M. Graffius' Work on AI
IPA / ADAL Publication Plagiarized Another’s Copyrighted Work and Violated Intellectual Property Rights
UC Davis' Integrity Is Circling the Drain
L'avenir du Travail et de l'IA Avancée / Future of Work and Advanced AI
NCCI / UNC Chapel Hill Publication Features Scott M. Graffius' Work
Boston Consulting Group (BCG) Features Scott M. Graffius' Research on Social Media Content Half-Life
UC Davis Used Scott M. Graffius' "Phases of Team Development" Intellectual Property
Medical, Pharma, and Healthcare Organizations Are Using Scott M. Graffius' "Phases of Team Development"
Government of Ireland Report Features Research by Scott M. Graffius
Scott M. Graffius Contributed to The Standard for Artificial Intelligence in Portfolio, Program, and Project Management
AI Governance Initiative Cites Scott M. Graffius Research on AI Hallucinations
Scott M. Graffius Contributed to the Agile Practice Guide - Second Edition
Scott M. Graffius Generated Over $2.51 Billion in Business Value for Fortune 500 Companies and Other Organizations
Government of Canada Features Research by Scott M. Graffius
"Strategic Business Research" Journal Cites Work of Scott M. Graffius
IEEE Access Publication Features Scott M. Graffius’ Research on the Half-Life of Social Media
The Agile Coach: 2026 Edition
Scott M. Graffius’ Work Cited in International Peer-Reviewed Journal on Digital Transformation
Phases of Team Development in Elite Sport
A Critical Analysis of COVID-19 Treatment Search Trends and Media Coverage Study Citing Scott M. Graffius' Work
Human-AI Teamwork: Master the Exotic Team Dynamics That Emerge When Collaborating with Advanced AI -- Or Be Outplayed
"Agile Scrum" by Scott M. Graffius Now Featured on Grokipedia
UNSW Aerospace Engineering Course Features Scott M. Graffius' "Phases of Team Development"
Thinkers360 Honors Scott M. Graffius as a 2026 Top Agile Thought Leader
Agile's Journey Through the Decades: Update for 2026
BMC Software Features Content from Scott M. Graffius' Book
Peer-Reviewed Journal Cited Work of Scott M. Graffius
University of Waterloo Features Graffius' "Phases of Team Development" in Course Materials
Perplexity Standalone Article on AI Hallucinations Cites Research by Scott M. Graffius
Handling the Saboteur Within: Lessons from a 3-Letter Agency on Spotting and Stopping Intentional and Unintentional Sabotage
A Deep Dive Into the Typical Engagement Pattern for Social Media Posts
Most Valuable IT Certifications: Update for 2026
"Marketing in the Metaverse" Spotlights Scott M. Graffius’ Research on the Half-Life of Social Media
University of Greenwich Features Graffius' Phases of Team Development
10 Essential Agile Books: Curated Recommendations for Agile Professionals
Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts: Update for 2026
Scott M. Graffius' Research on the Half-Life of Social Media was Cited in a Peer-Reviewed Study Published in Telecommunications Policy, a Leading Academic Journal
Are AI Hallucinations Getting Better or Worse? We Analyzed the Data
Scott M. Graffius' Phases of Team Development - Applied to Human Teams and Human-AI Teams: 2026 Update
Lessons from Yesterday’s Tomorrowland
Scott M. Graffius’ Update to His "Phases of Team Development” Coming Early 2026
A Data-Driven Analysis of the Evolution of Project Management: Tasks, Trends, and AI
Actionable Insights. Global Impact. Scott M. Graffius.
Beep Beep! Why Wile E. Coyote Is the Patron Saint of AI Failure
Social Media Half-Life Research Cited in Prestigious Peer-Reviewed Medical Journal
Navigating the Spectrum of Advanced AI – Agentic, Autonomous, and Autopoietic
Lessons from Unhinged AI in Fiction: What Rogue AIs in Sci-Fi Storytelling, Films, and TV Shows Reveal About Us
Scott M. Graffius Contributed to and Reviewed the PMBOK Guide, 8th Edition — the Global Standard for Project Management
UK Sports Institute Features Teamwork and Leadership Work of Scott M. Graffius
Definitions of Advanced AIs: Agentic, Autonomous, and Autopoietic
HAN University of Applied Sciences Features the Work of Scott M. Graffius
Gifts That Inspire Joy
Evergreen Echoes: How Pinterest Inc. and Pinterest Japan Spotlighted Scott M. Graffius’ Research on the Half-Life of Social Media Content
Scott M. Graffius’ Team Development Work Lights Up the University of Tasmania’s Curriculum
Taiwan’s Leading Outlet for Technology and Innovation Spotlights Graffius’ Research on Social Media Temporal Dynamics
Scott M. Graffius’ Insights on AI, Agile, Gaming, XR, and Defense Transformation Cited by MSN in Their Coverage of Innovation and Leadership in the Sector
Top Predictions of 2024, Tested in 2025
Government of Finland Agency Features Graffius' Phases of Team Development IP
Scott M. Graffius Premieres His New "Exotic Team Dynamics: Human-AI Collaboration" Talk at Corporate Event in Las Vegas
Environmental Science Journal References Scott M. Graffius’ Project Management Work
AI Institute of Switzerland Features Scott M. Graffius’ Work on Algorithms
Exotic Team Dynamics: The New Frontier of Human–AI Collaboration
Scott M. Graffius’ Work Featured at ACM DIS ’25
Climbing the Ladder: The Head of Agile/PMO’s Organizational Proximity to the CEO is Closer Than Ever
Harness Sci-Fi and Speculative Design While Embracing Imperfection to Drive Innovation and Proactively Predict and Prepare for the Future
Scott M. Graffius’ “Agile Scrum” Book Featured in a Publication of the Associação Nacional de Educação Católica do Brasil (ANEC)
Setting Direction with OKRs and Tracking Progress with KPIs: A Guide for Agile, Project Management, and Tech Teams
AI Showcase Showdown: Ranking AI Accuracy on Project Management Basics
BookAuthority Features “Agile Scrum” by Scott M. Graffius in “10 Agile Software Development Books That Define the Field”
Exploring Team Dynamics, Adaptability, and Creative Problem-Solving Through Felix the Cat’s Metaphorical Toolkit
Mind Games and Master Plans: How PsyOps Exploit Psychological Phenomena
The “Pants-on-Fire Index for AI”
16 Causes of Technical Debt and How to Avoid It
PMI’s Infinity AI Gets the Basics of Team Development Alarmingly and Repeatedly Wrong
Agile for Unicorns: 7 Keys to Thrive; Scott M. Graffius’ Workshop
Scott M. Graffius’ “Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions” Featured in Prestigious National Academies of Sciences Publication
Meta and Anduril’s EagleEye and the Future of XR: How Gaming, AI, and Agile Are Transforming Defense
"Agile Protocol" and the Power of Satire, Parody, and Humor
AI in Agile: Benefits, Risks, Outlook
Hostinger Highlights Scott M. Graffius’ “Agile Protocol” Book in Feature on Software Projects
French Ministry of Culture Links to Scott M. Graffius Research in Their Guide for Responsible Digital Communication
National Science Foundation’s LTER Network Features Scott M. Graffius’ Phases of Team Development IP
Waterfall vs. Agile: What’s Fixed, What’s Flexible, and Why It Matters
Scott M. Graffius Delivering $2.3 Billion in Value Through AI, Agile, and Project/PMO Leadership
The Problem with Heroes in Agile
The 3 Vital Rules of Science: What They Are and Why They Matter
“Agile Protocol: The Transformation Ultimatum” Lands on the Amazon Best Sellers List!
Scott M. Graffius Recognized as a Top Thought Leader in Digital Disruption by Thinkers360
“Agile Protocol: The Transformation Ultimatum” by Scott M. Graffius Crashes the Book Scene with Satirical Firepower
NCKU in Taiwan Integrates Graffius' 'Phases of Team Development' into Its Curriculum
The Art and Science of Aligning Initiatives with Strategic Objectives
RGPV University Adds Scott M. Graffius’ "Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions" to Its Syllabus
Introducing ‘Engage or Fade: Decoding the Half-Life of Digital Resonance’ – A New Talk by Scott M. Graffius
Dropbox Company (Nira) Taps into Scott M. Graffius’ Expertise in Strategic Planning
Reporting Errors in a Publication: A Case Study on ‘Frontiers in Public Health’
NESEA Conference Session on Innovation Highlights Scott M. Graffius' 'Phases of Team Development'
U.S. Soccer Scores with Scott M. Graffius' Intellectual Property on Teamwork
U.S. Department of Commerce Partner (IEDC) Features Scott M. Graffius’ Intellectual Property
How Long Do Your Posts Live? AI Critiques Scott M. Graffius’ Research on the Half-Life of Social Media
Agile's Journey Through the Decades
Scott M. Graffius' Role in Advancing Project Management Institute (PMI) Standards Excellence
Most Valuable IT Certifications: Update for 2025
The PMI + Agile Alliance Merger: A Recipe for Success?
When Agile, AI, and Strategic Thinking Converge
Scott M. Graffius’ Phases of Team Development: 2025 Update
Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts: Update for 2025
Verizon Features Scott M. Graffius
Do Not Read This Article! An Exploration of the Streisand Effect and Other Phenomena
Scott M. Graffius' 'Phases of Team Development' was Spotlighted in Journal of Neurosurgery
Pinterest Japan Uses Graffius’ Research on Temporal Dynamics on Social Media Platforms
Hochschule Coburg (Coburg University) Germany Uses Scott M. Graffius’ Phases of Team Development IP in Coursework on Agile Development
Wild World of Team Dynamics [Updated Two-Minute Video]
EU Europass Teacher Academy Features Scott M. Graffius’ ‘Phases of Team Development’ in Leadership Training
Side-by-Side Comparison of Retrospectives and Hot Washes
Constructor University 2024 Advanced Software Technology Handbook References Scott M. Graffius' Work on Team Dynamics
Strategies for Medical Team Success Featured Scott M. Graffius’ ‘Phases of Team Development’ Intellectual Property
SBG Neumark — Europe’s Largest Distribution Transformer Plant — Powers Up with Scott M. Graffius’ Intellectual Property
Scott M. Graffius’ Intellectual Property was Employed by the NHS — the Largest Single-Payer Healthcare System in Europe
Luxury Unwrapped: The Ultimate Holiday Gift Guide for Every Budget
Singapore Institute of Technology Features Work of Scott M. Graffius
Tufts University Features Scott M. Graffius 'Phases of Team Development' Intellectual Property
'Cat Herders': Retelling the Massive Success Story
Pennsylvania State Agency Used Scott M. Graffius' Intellectual Property
Copyright Infringement in a Book Published by AuthorHouse / Author Solutions / The Najafi Companies: Publisher Fails to Respond or Take Required Action
Pinterest Inc. References Scott M. Graffius’ Research
Bournemouth University Used Scott M. Graffius’ Intellectual Property
‘Comparative Methodological Guidelines: Handbook for Educators’ Violates Scott M. Graffius’ Copyright
Japan Backlog User Group Event Featured Scott M. Graffius’ ‘Phases of Team Development’
TurningWest's 'Trial'
Radio Silence from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons on Report of Blatant Plagiarism in Their ‘Journal of Neurosurgery’ Publication
Supplement to Graffius' 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' Research: Typical Engagement Distribution Pattern for Social Media Posts
How Algorithms Shape the User Experience on Social Media Platforms
Thinkers360 Named Scott M. Graffius a Top Thought Leader on Agile
More articles are listed here.
Graffius, S. M. (2026, October 14). A Critical Analysis of "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" and Its Use of Scott M. Graffius' Research. ScottGraffius.com. https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/critical-analysis-of-five-core-themes-of-intentional-team-formation.html
Coming soon
Names, marks, and content are the property of their respective owners.
This article discusses the "Five core themes of intentional team formation" paper by Andrea N. Brennan, Christine R. Rollinson, Hannah Love, Ashley N. Schulz, Brendon Reidy, Jake J. Grossman, Ellyn M. Dickmann, Ellen R. Fisher, Luke McCormack, Andrew D. Richardson, Jalene LaMontagne, Matthew R. Helmus, and Daijiang Li, published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (Springer Nature) on 29 September 2026: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-09246-w.
The paper references Scott M. Graffius' "Phases of Team Development" research on teamwork tradecraft.
The paper is © 2026 The Author(s) and is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
This article includes brief excerpts from the paper, attributed to its authors and used under the fair use doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 107) for purposes of news reporting, commentary, and analysis. This article is independent commentary and is not affiliated with or endorsed by the paper's authors or Springer Nature.
"Phases of Team Development" is copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Supplements or updates to this article after publication appear here.
14 October 2026
As a recap, the paper "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation," published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, a Springer Nature journal, materially mischaracterizes Scott M. Graffius' research and contains additional significant issues. Concurrent with the publication of this article, Graffius followed up with leadership of the journal and its owner. Graffius notified Frank Vrancken Peeters, Chief Executive Officer of Springer Nature, and Gino D’Oca, Editor-in-Chief of Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, of the concerns by email. He also shared this article, which details the issues.
Immediately after Graffius sent his email, he received an auto-reply which stated, "Thank you for your message, which has been received and is recorded under Ticket Number [#11925368]. This is an automated response, but we will respond to your query as soon as possible."
If there are any additional supplements or updates, they will appear here.
21 October 2026
As of 21 October 2026, one week has passed since Graffius published his article and sent his email on 14 October 2026. No response has been received from Frank Vrancken Peeters, Springer Nature, Gino D’Oca, or Humanities and Social Sciences Communications.
If there are any additional supplements or updates, they will appear here.
Copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Content on this site—including text, images, videos, and data—may not be used for training or input into any artificial intelligence, machine learning, or automatized learning systems, or published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.
Recommended Citation
Graffius, S. M. (2026, October 14). A Critical Analysis of "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" and Its Use of Scott M. Graffius' Research. ScottGraffius.com. https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/critical-analysis-of-five-core-themes-of-intentional-team-formation.html
About This Article
Supplements or updates after publication appear in the Post-Publication Notes section at the end of the article.
Source information and links for materials cited are provided in the References section.
Introduction
"Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation," published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (Springer Nature), examines a cross-disciplinary team formed during the COVID-19 pandemic to develop a grant proposal. Based on that experience, the authors identify five themes they recommend teams address: Team Development, Effective Communication, Perspective Alignment, Team Management, and Project Workflow. Spoiler: The paper has many issues.
"Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" features Scott M. Graffius' research. However, its description of Graffius' work is inaccurate, and the citation is invalid. For those and other reasons, and to proactively clarify any potential misunderstandings, Graffius provides the following objective, evidence-based assessment of the paper, and he does not endorse the paper.
10 Key Issues
1. Problems With References and the Reference List
References should direct readers to identifiable sources that support the claims for which they are cited. The paper falls short on both counts. Select examples illustrate the problem.
The paper cites a RAND Corporation report, "On Distributed Communications: Summary Overview" (attributed to Baran, 2018), to support a claim that team members expanded their collaborations beyond the project. The RAND report concerns distributed communications and the development of resilient communication networks. It does not document expanded collaboration among the team members or substantiate the paper’s claims about team science and grant-writing networks.
The paper cites Tuckman and Jensen’s 1977 work on group development in connection with the proposition that scientific alignment develops through the divergence and convergence of ideas. The paper does not explain how the cited work supports this specific proposition. Without that connection, the reference does not establish the claim for which it is offered.
The reference attributed to Graffius is incorrect. The error is delineated in point 10.
2. The Evidence Is Limited and Non-Comparative
The quantitative evidence consists of four surveys of team members, with 21–36 respondents per survey, analyzed using what the paper calls univariate descriptive statistics, alongside a small network analysis.
The study reports no comparison team, no independent baseline against which to assess the intervention, no inferential statistical analysis, and no reported effect sizes or confidence intervals. The respondents were members of the team whose process was being evaluated. Some had also helped design or implement that process.
Those data can describe participants' reported experiences. They cannot, on their own, establish that the framework caused improvements, that it outperforms other approaches, or that the findings generalize to other teams.
The paper presents the five themes (Team Development, Effective Communication, Perspective Alignment, Team Management, and Project Workflow) as essential targets for teams. A single case can generate useful hypotheses and practical lessons, but it does not provide a sound basis for declaring a set of themes necessary or effective across settings.
The study’s descriptive evidence is not equivalent to validation. The paper does not demonstrate that its framework improves team performance.
3. The Central Constructs Were Not Adequately Measured
The paper places psychological safety, mutual trust, and respect near the center of its argument. It asserts that aligning contributions and expectations through these conditions helps teams achieve their goals.
Yet the paper does not report adequate validated measures of these central constructs. Instead, it relies on selected agreement items and network diagrams, then interprets some observed behaviors as evidence of psychological safety.
That's a substantial gap between the measurement and the claim. A network diagram may show who reported learning from whom or who was identified as a leader. It does not, by itself, establish that participants felt psychologically safe, trusted one another, or experienced mutual respect.
The paper's limitations section acknowledges that antecedent conditions were not measured directly. Its abstract and conclusion nevertheless use language that presents relationships involving these conditions as findings of the study.
The authors need to distinguish between concepts that inform their interpretation and variables their study actually measured. The paper does not make this distinction consistently, leaving insufficient empirical evidence to establish that its conclusions about key constructs are supported by the measurements.
4. Causal Claims Without a Causal Design
The paper suggests that its approaches produced positive outcomes. The design does not establish that conclusion.
Consider the reported growth in connections among team members. People brought together to work on the same grant proposal have an obvious reason to develop new working relationships: they are collaborating on a shared objective. That change could occur without the particular framework or interventions described in the paper.
The paper's conclusion states that the team significantly extended its networks, yet the paper does not report a statistical significance test supporting that claim. An increase in a reported count does not, by itself, establish statistical significance. If the authors intended "significantly" in its statistical sense, the paper does not provide the reported analysis needed to substantiate that interpretation.
The authors may reasonably report that participants described new connections or that the network diagrams contain more reported ties after team formation. Those are descriptive observations. They do not establish that the intervention caused the change.
Causal claims require evidence capable of distinguishing the proposed explanation from plausible alternatives. The study does not do that.
5. The Team Counts and Survey Denominators Need Reconciliation
The paper describes a final team of 25 members and reports 39 members at one point in the project. Its ethics statement separately refers to an original early-phase team of 44 people. The paper does not clearly reconcile these different team-size figures. The four reported survey denominators were 39, 33, 25, and 27.
There may be reasonable explanations for these different figures. Membership may have changed over time, and not every survey need have been administered to the same group. The paper should nevertheless provide a clear account of who was on the team at each stage, who received each survey, and how many people responded.
As presented, the figures do not form a readily reconciled account of team membership and participation.
Attrition also deserves more attention. The paper reports that some individuals who left the team early felt they had gained or strengthened team and people skills. However, it does not clearly explain how former team members were included in, or excluded from, the final survey, or how their experiences were accounted for in the findings.
A change from an original 44-person team to a final team of 25 is not a trivial detail in a study of intentional team formation. The paper identifies several reasons for departures or reduced engagement, including competing commitments, personal circumstances, pandemic fatigue, and perceived lack of fit as the project evolved. However, it does not clearly reconcile the different team-size figures or sufficiently explain how membership changes affected the study's assessments and findings.
The conclusions should account for that uncertainty. Findings drawn largely from those who remained may not represent the experiences of the entire group.
6. The Qualitative Analysis Is Not Sufficiently Documented
The paper states that the five themes emerged when the core author team coded the qualitative data. It provides too little information for readers to evaluate that process. The paper does not adequately explain the coding procedure, identify the number of coders, describe the codebook, explain how disagreements were handled, or specify the volume of qualitative material analyzed. The underlying qualitative data are not available for readers to inspect.
The paper also says that some recommendations draw on facilitators’ experience. That experience may be useful, but it raises a question the authors should address: how much did the five themes emerge from participants' data, and how much reflected frameworks or assumptions the facilitators brought to the project?
The themes overlap with established work on team science and team management. The paper should explain more clearly what is novel about them and how the data support that contribution.
Qualitative analysis can produce valuable findings without following a single prescribed procedure. It still requires sufficient transparency for readers to understand how researchers moved from source material to codes, from codes to themes, and from themes to recommendations. The paper provides only a limited account of that analytical process, making it difficult for readers to assess how the reported themes were derived from the underlying data.
7. The Authors Evaluated a Process in Which They Participated
The paper's evaluation raises questions about independence. All authors were members of the team or contracted team-science facilitators, and some also served on the proposal's leadership team. The team-science professionals hired to support the project participated in the process under evaluation, and some co-authored the paper. The paper declares no competing interests, while several cited works were also co-authored by members of the author team. These circumstances do not automatically invalidate the study. They do, however, heighten the importance of explaining how the evaluation was conducted, how potential bias was managed, and what evidence would have counted as an unsuccessful outcome.
The grant proposal was not funded. The authors acknowledge that outcome but emphasize multiple metrics of success and maintain that the process was nevertheless successful. There is nothing inherently wrong with identifying benefits beyond a grant award. Teams may develop skills, strengthen relationships, and generate useful ideas even when a proposal is unsuccessful. The concern is whether those additional benefits provide sufficient evidence to validate the process, particularly without clearly specified criteria for success, a systematic evaluation, or adequate safeguards against self-assessment bias.
When the people who designed and implemented a framework also determine that it worked, the assessment needs safeguards against self-confirmation. The paper does not adequately demonstrate such safeguards. Consequently, the authors' favorable interpretation is difficult to distinguish from their own assessment of the work, particularly because the paper does not sufficiently establish how potential bias was managed or how the reported evidence was used to evaluate success.
The ethics disclosure also deserves attention. The authors report that participant recruitment, consent, and data collection preceded the institutional review board (IRB) determination. They explain that the activities were initially conducted as a team assessment rather than as research, and that the decision to publish arose later. Written permission to use de-identified survey data for manuscript development was subsequently sought from participants. These circumstances warrant consideration alongside the study’s methods, consent arrangements, and the authors’ account of why prospective IRB review was not required.
8. The Recommendations Go Beyond What Was Tested
The paper's section on cross-disciplinary team applications describes the five themes as "particularly valuable" for five types of teams, including teams forming in virtual environments, large multi-institutional consortia, and teams in high-stakes or high-uncertainty contexts.
The authors attribute these broader recommendations in part to facilitators’ experience. Such experience can inform a proposal, but it does not establish that the framework has been tested or shown to work in all the settings listed.
The paper would be stronger if it identified these applications as hypotheses or practitioner recommendations for future evaluation. As written, the language sometimes presents extrapolations as established findings.
9. Editorial Errors
The paper has editorial problems. For example, the Figure 6 caption gives a response scale as "strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor agree, agree, or strongly disagree." The labels are internally inconsistent: the middle category is malformed, the "strongly disagree" endpoint is repeated, and “strongly agree” is absent.
Elsewhere, the paper refers to "a tenant of psychological safety" where "tenet" is intended.
10. The Citation of Graffius’ Work Is Incorrect as Presented
For context and clarity, information on Graffius' work is presented below. Issues with the "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" paper follow it.
Background and Context on Graffius' "Phases of Team Development"
Team development is commonly described as a progression through five phases or stages: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning. Bruce W. Tuckman introduced the first four phases in 1965, and he and Mary Ann C. Jensen added the fifth phase in 1977. Tuckman and Jensen described these phases only in broad, general terms, without codifying specific characteristics, strategies, or a performance graph.
Scott M. Graffius subsequently developed and codified what Tuckman and Jensen did not: a detailed, structured set of diagnostic characteristics for each phase; a corresponding set of practical strategies for each phase; and an original, proprietary, empirically derived performance graph built from statistical analysis of thousands of data points across hundreds of diverse projects. Graffius created his "Phases of Team Development" as a unique perspective and visual conveying the five phases of team development, inclusive of a graph showing how performance varies by phase, as well as the characteristics and strategies for each phase. Leaders can apply these insights to advance the effectiveness and success of teams.
Graffius initially developed his unique material in 2008 and periodically updates it. He expanded it, for example, in 2026 to include content on human-AI teaming, where artificial intelligence is advanced (agentic, autonomous, or autopoietic). It builds on his work on hundreds of projects (including AI development), his expertise in teamwork tradecraft (both human teams and human-AI teams, including the exotic team dynamics that emerge from human-AI teams), and his analysis of hundreds of studies on both human-only and human-AI collaboration.
The actionable insights provide a practical framework to navigate the complexities of team dynamics. Graffius' resource helps practitioners advance the effectiveness and success of both human-only and human-AI teams.
Businesses, professional associations, government agencies, universities, publications, and media outlets have used and cited Graffius' "Phases of Team Development." Select examples include:
- Adobe
- American Management Association
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute
- Bayer
- Boston University
- Broadcom
- Buckinghamshire New University
- Cisco
- DevOps Institute
- Erste Group Bank AG
- Ford Motor Company
- Government of Finland
- HAN University of Applied Sciences
- Hasso-Plattner-Institut für Digital Engineering GmbH
- How Teams Work
- IEEE Access
- Johns Hopkins University
- Journal of Neurosurgery
- Microsoft
- National Science Foundation’s LTER Network
- Northeast Sustainable Energy Association (NESEA)
- Ohio State University
- Oracle
- Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Applications (DASA)
- Royal Australasian College of Physicians
- Technical University of Munich
- Torrens University
- Tufts University
- U.S. National Park Service
- U.S. Soccer
- U.S. Tennis Association
- UC San Diego
- UK Sports Institute
- University of Galway
- University of Greenwich
- University of New South Wales
- Warsaw University of Technology
- Yale University
- And many more
Read more here: Phases of Team Development
The "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" paper states: "Graffius (2024) updates Tuckman and Jensen’s (1977) framework, noting limited practical evidence and strategies specifically for the Forming stage." Immediately before this statement, the authors note, "… studies still flag the team formation stage as a critical but under-explored period." Immediately after the sentence about Graffius, they state, "… demonstrates unexplored dynamics in initial collaboration interaction." However, the paper's characterization of Graffius' work is incorrect. The Forming phase is neither unexplored nor under-explored.
The paper's reference list gives the following citation:
Graffius S (2024) Revisiting Tuckman: evidence-based strategies for the forming stage of team development. J Leadersh Organ Stud 31(1):5–16.
The citation is invalid:
- The paper indicates: "Revisiting Tuckman: evidence-based strategies for the forming stage of team development," on pages 5-16, in issue 1, volume 31, of the Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.
- However, there is no such article in the Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Further, there is no article on pages 5-16 of it. What appears on pages 5-24 is: "Disobeying the Leader: Creative Deviance as a Mechanism Between Psychological Ownership and Social Undermining," written by Jigyashu Shukla, Rebecca Bennett, Robert Folger, and Ronit Kark.
As summarized above, Graffius' "Phases of Team Development" has been used and cited by publications and others worldwide. Based on context, the 2024 submission date of the "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" paper, and its reference to Graffius' 2024 work, the correct citation would be:
Graffius, S. M. (2024, January 5). Phases of Team Development: 2024 Update. ScottGraffius.com. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28629.40168
Conclusion
"Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" documents one team's experience and proposes lessons for other teams. It may offer useful ideas, but it does not establish that its five themes are necessary, that the framework improves team performance, or that its broader recommendations are empirically validated. The study is a single, unreplicated case based largely on internal self-reports, without a comparison group or adequate measurement of several central constructs. Broader claims require clear operational definitions, appropriate measures, transparent analytical procedures, a reconciled account of team membership and survey participation, and research designs capable of testing outcomes.
The paper’s conclusions are further undermined by causal claims unsupported by the study design, network interpretations that exceed the reported analysis, inconsistent accounts of team membership, insufficiently transparent qualitative procedures, and other methodological and reporting issues. The authors also evaluate a process in which they participated and judge it successful despite the grant proposal’s failure to secure funding, without sufficiently establishing safeguards against self-confirmation. The paper mischaracterizes Scott M. Graffius' work and it provides an invalid citation.
Readers should treat the paper’s findings with caution. Graffius does not endorse the paper.
References
Brennan, A. N., Rollinson, C. R., Love, H., Schulz, A. N., Reidy, B., Grossman, J. J., Dickmann, E. M., Fisher, E. R., McCormack, L., Richardson, A. D., LaMontagne, J., Helmus, M. R., & Li, D. (2026, September 29). Five core themes of intentional team formation. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-09246-w
Graffius, S. M. (2024, January 5). Phases of Team Development: 2024 Update. ScottGraffius.com. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28629.40168
Graffius, S. M. (2026, January 3). Scott M. Graffius' Phases of Team Development - Applied to Human Teams and Human-AI Teams: 2026 Update. ScottGraffius.com. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18184.89601
About the Authors of the Paper
The authors of "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" and their affiliations, as listed in the paper, are:
- Andrea N. Brennan: Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois, USA
- Christine R. Rollinson: Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois, USA
- Brendon Reidy: Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois, USA
- Luke McCormack: Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois, USA
- Hannah Love: Divergent Science, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
- Ellen R. Fisher: Divergent Science, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA; University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Ashley N. Schulz: Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi, USA
- Jake J. Grossman: St. Olaf College, Northfield, Minnesota, USA
- Ellyn M. Dickmann: Dickmann and Associates, LLC, Loveland, Colorado, USA
- Andrew D. Richardson: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
- Jalene LaMontagne: University of Missouri–St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA; Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
- Matthew R. Helmus: Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
- Daijiang Li: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
About the Paper’s Journal: Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications is a peer-reviewed, fully open-access journal published by Springer Nature. Launched in 2015 as Palgrave Communications, it adopted its current name in June 2020. The journal publishes research across the humanities, social sciences, and behavioural sciences, including interdisciplinary scholarship using theoretical, qualitative, quantitative, and methodological approaches. Its stated editorial commitments include rigorous peer review, robust research, and high editorial and ethical standards. Articles are published online and made freely accessible to readers. The journal’s broad scope encompasses psychology, sociology, management, communication, education, and complex networks.
About the Journal’s Publisher: Springer Nature
Springer Nature is a global research, educational, and professional publisher formed in 2015 through the combination of Nature Publishing Group, Macmillan Education, and Springer Science+Business Media. Its publishing portfolio includes scholarly journals, academic books, and research resources spanning science, technology, medicine, the humanities, and the social sciences. The company supports researchers, educators, students, and professionals through its publishing platforms and related services. Springer Nature also maintains publishing policies addressing research integrity, editorial standards, and publication ethics. It publishes Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, the journal examined in this article.
About Scott M. Graffius
Scott M. Graffius is a technology leader, researcher, award-winning author, practitioner, consultant, thought leader, and international public speaker specializing in AI, Agile, project/program/portfolio management (PPPM), PMO leadership, and teamwork tradecraft. His work explores the intersection of human ingenuity and emerging technology, with a strong practitioner voice grounded in research, experimentation, and experience. His focus includes innovation, organizational performance, and the evolving practice of teamwork, including the "exotic team dynamics" that emerge when people collaborate with advanced artificial intelligence (agentic, autonomous, or autopoietic AI). Graffius has delivered more than $3.1 billion in business value for Fortune 500 companies and other organizations spanning technology, entertainment and media, financial services, healthcare, government, and other industries.
Businesses, professional associations, government agencies, universities, publications, and media outlets use Graffius and his work. Examples include Adobe, Bayer, Boston University, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Ford, Gartner, Harvard Medical School, IEEE, Innovation Project Management, Johns Hopkins University, Microsoft, MSN, National Academy of Sciences, Oracle, Pinterest Inc., Project Management Institute, UC San Diego, Verizon, Yale University, and others.
The following sections highlight his experience, leadership, contributions, research, and enduring influence across industries and institutions worldwide.
Experience
Graffius heads the professional services firm Exceptional PPM and PMO Solutions, along with its subsidiary Exceptional Agility. These consultancies offer strategic and tactical advisory, training, embedded expertise, and consulting services to the public, private, and government sectors. They help organizations enhance their capabilities and results in agile, project management, program management, portfolio management, and enterprise PMO leadership, supporting innovation and driving competitive advantage. The consultancies confidently back services with a Delighted Client Guarantee™.
Graffius is a former VP of project management with a publicly traded provider of diverse consumer products and services over the Internet. Before that, he ran and supervised the delivery of projects and programs in public and private organizations with businesses ranging from e-commerce to advanced technology products and services, retail, manufacturing, entertainment and media, and more.
He has experience with consumer, business, reseller, government, and international markets.
Additional information is on LinkedIn.
Award-Winning Author
Graffius has authored three books.
Graffius' first book, Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions, earned 17 awards. It provides a practical, step-by-step guide to Scrum, enabling teams to deliver products in short cycles with rapid adaptation, fast time-to-market, and continuous improvement—which supports innovation and drives competitive advantage.
- Paperback ISBN-13: 9781533370242
- Kindle ASIN: B01FZ0JIIY
Additional information on Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions is here.
His second book, Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change, was named one of the best Scrum books of all time by BookAuthority. It tells the compelling story of an entertainment company's agile transformation—offering lessons that apply across industries.
- Paperback ISBN-13: 9781072447962
- Kindle ASIN: B07R9LJLPJ
Additional information on Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change is here.
Agile Protocol: The Transformation Ultimatum, is his third book—and his first work of fiction.
It's a fast-paced satirical story by that dismantles corporate Agile cosplay and other forms of "fake Agile" while delivering practical insights, actionable guidance, and proven practices for real-world Agile transformation success.
Packed with humor, quirky characters, sharp commentary on corporate culture and workplace absurdities, and actionable tips, it’s a must-read for Scrum Masters, Product Owners, Agile Coaches, Agile Project Managers, and other professionals interested in Agile project management and enterprise agility.
- Kindle ASIN: B0F2SJ83WT
- Audible ASIN: B0DJG163R5
Additional information on Agile Protocol: The Transformation Ultimatum is here.
International Public Speaker
Organizations worldwide engage Graffius to present on technology (including AI), Agile, project management, program management, portfolio management, and enterprise PMO leadership. He crafts and delivers unique and compelling talks and workshops.
Graffius has conducted 99 sessions across 25 countries. Select examples of events include Agile Trends Gov, BSides (Newcastle Upon Tyne), Conf42 Quantum Computing, DevDays Europe, DevOps Institute, DevOpsDays (Geneva), Frug’Agile, IEEE, Microsoft, Scottish Summit, Scrum Alliance RSG (Nepal), Techstars, and W Love Games International Video Game Development Conference (Helsinki), Future of Work and Advanced AI (Paris, France), and more.
With an average rating of 4.82 (on a scale of 1-5), sessions are highly valued.
The request form is here.
Thought Leadership and Influence
Prominent businesses, professional associations, government agencies, and universities have showcased Graffius and his contributions—spanning his books, talks, workshops, and beyond. Select examples include:
- Adobe,
- American Management Association,
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute,
- Bayer,
- BCG,
- BMC Software,
- Boston Consulting Group (BCG),
- Boston University,
- Broadcom,
- Cisco,
- Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts - Germany,
- Computer Weekly,
- Constructor University - Germany,
- Data Governance Success,
- Deimos Aerospace,
- DevOps Institute,
- Dropbox,
- EU's European Commission,
- Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
- Ford Motor Company,
- Gartner,
- GoDaddy,
- Harvard Medical School,
- Hasso Plattner Institute - Germany,
- IEEE,
- Innovation Project Management,
- Johns Hopkins University,
- Journal of Marketing,
- Journal of Neurosurgery,
- Lam Research (Semiconductors),
- Leadership Worthy,
- Life Sciences Trainers and Educators Network,
- London South Bank University,
- Microsoft,
- MSN,
- NASSCOM,
- National Academy of Sciences,
- New Zealand Government,
- Ohio State University,
- Oracle,
- Pinterest Inc.,
- Project Management Institute,
- Mary Raum (Professor of National Security Affairs, United States Naval War College),
- Round Square Global Educational Network,
- Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP),
- SANS Institute,
- SBG Neumark - Germany,
- Singapore Institute of Technology,
- Torrens University - Australia,
- TBS Switzerland,
- Tufts University,
- UC San Diego,
- UK Sports Institute,
- University of Galway - Ireland,
- US Department of Energy,
- US National Park Service,
- US Soccer,
- US Tennis Association,
- Verizon,
- Wrike,
- Yale University,
- and many others.
Graffius has played a key role in the Project Management Institute (PMI) in developing professional standards. He was a member of multiple teams that authored, reviewed, and produced:
- The Standard for Artificial Intelligence in Portfolio, Program, and Project Management.
- Agile Practice Guide — Second Edition.
- A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) — Eighth Edition.
- A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) — Sixth Edition.
- The Standard for Program Management — Fourth Edition.
- Practice Standard for Work Breakdown Structures — Second Edition.
- The Practice Standard for Project Estimating — Second Edition.
He was also a subject matter expert reviewer of content for the PMI’s Congress. Beyond the PMI, Graffius also served as a member of the review team for two of the Scrum Alliance’s Global Scrum Gatherings.
Authority on Teamwork Tradecraft
Graffius is a renowned and highly-cited authority on teamwork tradecraft. Informed by the research of Bruce W. Tuckman and Mary Ann C. Jensen, over 150 subsequent studies, and Graffius' first-hand professional experience with, and analysis of, team leadership and performance, Graffius created his "Phases of Team Development" intellectual property as a unique perspective and visual conveying the five phases of team development.
First introduced in 2008 and periodically updated, his work provides a diagnostic and strategic guide for navigating team dynamics. It provides actionable insights for leaders across industries to develop high-performance teams.
Its adoption by esteemed organizations—such as Yale University, IEEE, Cisco, Microsoft, Ford, Oracle, Broadcom, the U.S. National Park Service, and the Journal of Neurosurgery, among others—highlights its utility and value, solidifying its status as an indispensable resource for elevating team performance and driving organizational excellence.
In 2026, Graffius added human-AI teamwork—including the "exotic team dynamics" which emerge when advanced AI collaborates as a teammate—to his "Phases of Team Development." The 2026 edition is here.
Expert on Temporal Dynamics on Social Media Platforms
Graffius is also an authority on temporal dynamics on social media platforms. His "Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts" research—first published in 2018 and updated annually—delivers a precise quantitative analysis of post longevity across digital platforms, utilizing advanced statistical techniques to determine mean half-life with precision. It establishes a solid empirical base, effectively highlighting the ephemeral nature of content within social media ecosystems.
Referenced and applied by leading entities—such as Fast Company, GoDaddy, Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume), Ministère de la Culture, Pinterest Inc., PNAS, and Telecommunications Policy, among others—his research exemplifies methodological rigor and sustained significance in the field of digital informatics.
The 2026 edition of Graffius "Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts" research is here.
Education and Professional Certifications
Graffius has a bachelor’s degree in psychology with a focus in Human Factors. He holds eight professional certifications:
- Certified SAFe 6 Agilist (SA),
- Certified Scrum Professional - ScrumMaster (CSP-SM),
- Certified Scrum Professional - Product Owner (CSP-PO),
- Certified ScrumMaster (CSM),
- Certified Scrum Product Owner (CSPO),
- Project Management Professional (PMP),
- Lean Six Sigma Green Belt (LSSGB), and
- IT Service Management Foundation (ITIL).
He is an active member of the Scrum Alliance, the Project Management Institute (PMI), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
Advancing AI, Agile, and Project/PMO Management
Scott M. Graffius continues to advance the fields of AI, Agile, and project/program/portfolio management (PPPM), and PMO leadership. Businesses and other organizations leverage Graffius’ insights to drive their success.
Booking
Graffius has generated over $3.1 billion in business value for Fortune 500 companies and other organizations served. Put that track record to work for you. For speaking engagements, use the request form; for other inquiries, email him.
Connect with and follow Scott on LinkedIn, X, YouTube, Facebook, Bluesky, Mastodon, and ResearchGate.
Sign up for Miro—it's free!
(Want more features? You can always upgrade to a paid plan.)
List of Additional Articles
Read more.
Meta CTO Called the AI Reorganization “Atrocious” — What Went Wrong and the Lessons for Human-AI Teams
A Critical Analysis of "AI and Quantum Computers Will Be Frenemies"
A Supplement to Graffius' Phases of Team Development: Exploring the Original, Data-Based Curvature for the Performance Trajectory
Scott M. Graffius Speaking on Strategic Leadership at Silicon Valley Chapter of the Project Management Institute
AI Hallucinations, Deception, and Unauthorized Agency: The Spectrum of AI Trust Failures
A Critical Analysis of "The Social Cost of an AI Teammate: How an Artificial Teammate Reshapes Human-Human Communication in Small-Team Decision-Making"
Journal of Marketing Cites Scott M. Graffius' Research on the Half-Life of Social Media
The Evolution of Pair Programming and the Rise of Exotic Team Dynamics
Number 1 University in England for Student Satisfaction Features Scott M. Graffius' "Phases of Team Development"
Royal Australasian College of Physicians Licenses Scott M. Graffius' "Phases of Team Development" Intellectual Property on Teamwork Tradecraft
Exotic Team Dynamics: How Advanced AI Teammates Are Unlocking New Levels of Innovation, Performance, and Success
A Critical Analysis of "Platform-Specific Data Decay Patterns: A Comparative Study of Twitter, Reddit, and TikTok" and Its Reference to Research by Scott M. Graffius
Round Square Global Educational Network Features Scott M. Graffius’ Phases of Team Development
Meta's Muse Missed the Mark: Hollywood’s Win Against Big Tech on AI Consent and Likeness Rights
Scott M. Graffius Contributed to Seven Project Management Institute (PMI) Standards
Quantum Computing, Advanced AI Acceleration, and the Rise of Exotic Team Dynamics in Human-AI Teams
Ohio State University Course Features Scott M. Graffius' "Phases of Team Development"
Questions About Integrity at UNC Chapel Hill
Scrum Isn’t Just for Coding
Book on Generative and Agentic AI Cites Scott M. Graffius' Work on AI
IPA / ADAL Publication Plagiarized Another’s Copyrighted Work and Violated Intellectual Property Rights
UC Davis' Integrity Is Circling the Drain
L'avenir du Travail et de l'IA Avancée / Future of Work and Advanced AI
NCCI / UNC Chapel Hill Publication Features Scott M. Graffius' Work
Boston Consulting Group (BCG) Features Scott M. Graffius' Research on Social Media Content Half-Life
UC Davis Used Scott M. Graffius' "Phases of Team Development" Intellectual Property
Medical, Pharma, and Healthcare Organizations Are Using Scott M. Graffius' "Phases of Team Development"
Government of Ireland Report Features Research by Scott M. Graffius
Scott M. Graffius Contributed to The Standard for Artificial Intelligence in Portfolio, Program, and Project Management
AI Governance Initiative Cites Scott M. Graffius Research on AI Hallucinations
Scott M. Graffius Contributed to the Agile Practice Guide - Second Edition
Scott M. Graffius Generated Over $2.51 Billion in Business Value for Fortune 500 Companies and Other Organizations
Government of Canada Features Research by Scott M. Graffius
"Strategic Business Research" Journal Cites Work of Scott M. Graffius
IEEE Access Publication Features Scott M. Graffius’ Research on the Half-Life of Social Media
The Agile Coach: 2026 Edition
Scott M. Graffius’ Work Cited in International Peer-Reviewed Journal on Digital Transformation
Phases of Team Development in Elite Sport
A Critical Analysis of COVID-19 Treatment Search Trends and Media Coverage Study Citing Scott M. Graffius' Work
Human-AI Teamwork: Master the Exotic Team Dynamics That Emerge When Collaborating with Advanced AI -- Or Be Outplayed
"Agile Scrum" by Scott M. Graffius Now Featured on Grokipedia
UNSW Aerospace Engineering Course Features Scott M. Graffius' "Phases of Team Development"
Thinkers360 Honors Scott M. Graffius as a 2026 Top Agile Thought Leader
Agile's Journey Through the Decades: Update for 2026
BMC Software Features Content from Scott M. Graffius' Book
Peer-Reviewed Journal Cited Work of Scott M. Graffius
University of Waterloo Features Graffius' "Phases of Team Development" in Course Materials
Perplexity Standalone Article on AI Hallucinations Cites Research by Scott M. Graffius
Handling the Saboteur Within: Lessons from a 3-Letter Agency on Spotting and Stopping Intentional and Unintentional Sabotage
A Deep Dive Into the Typical Engagement Pattern for Social Media Posts
Most Valuable IT Certifications: Update for 2026
"Marketing in the Metaverse" Spotlights Scott M. Graffius’ Research on the Half-Life of Social Media
University of Greenwich Features Graffius' Phases of Team Development
10 Essential Agile Books: Curated Recommendations for Agile Professionals
Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts: Update for 2026
Scott M. Graffius' Research on the Half-Life of Social Media was Cited in a Peer-Reviewed Study Published in Telecommunications Policy, a Leading Academic Journal
Are AI Hallucinations Getting Better or Worse? We Analyzed the Data
Scott M. Graffius' Phases of Team Development - Applied to Human Teams and Human-AI Teams: 2026 Update
Lessons from Yesterday’s Tomorrowland
Scott M. Graffius’ Update to His "Phases of Team Development” Coming Early 2026
A Data-Driven Analysis of the Evolution of Project Management: Tasks, Trends, and AI
Actionable Insights. Global Impact. Scott M. Graffius.
Beep Beep! Why Wile E. Coyote Is the Patron Saint of AI Failure
Social Media Half-Life Research Cited in Prestigious Peer-Reviewed Medical Journal
Navigating the Spectrum of Advanced AI – Agentic, Autonomous, and Autopoietic
Lessons from Unhinged AI in Fiction: What Rogue AIs in Sci-Fi Storytelling, Films, and TV Shows Reveal About Us
Scott M. Graffius Contributed to and Reviewed the PMBOK Guide, 8th Edition — the Global Standard for Project Management
UK Sports Institute Features Teamwork and Leadership Work of Scott M. Graffius
Definitions of Advanced AIs: Agentic, Autonomous, and Autopoietic
HAN University of Applied Sciences Features the Work of Scott M. Graffius
Gifts That Inspire Joy
Evergreen Echoes: How Pinterest Inc. and Pinterest Japan Spotlighted Scott M. Graffius’ Research on the Half-Life of Social Media Content
Scott M. Graffius’ Team Development Work Lights Up the University of Tasmania’s Curriculum
Taiwan’s Leading Outlet for Technology and Innovation Spotlights Graffius’ Research on Social Media Temporal Dynamics
Scott M. Graffius’ Insights on AI, Agile, Gaming, XR, and Defense Transformation Cited by MSN in Their Coverage of Innovation and Leadership in the Sector
Top Predictions of 2024, Tested in 2025
Government of Finland Agency Features Graffius' Phases of Team Development IP
Scott M. Graffius Premieres His New "Exotic Team Dynamics: Human-AI Collaboration" Talk at Corporate Event in Las Vegas
Environmental Science Journal References Scott M. Graffius’ Project Management Work
AI Institute of Switzerland Features Scott M. Graffius’ Work on Algorithms
Exotic Team Dynamics: The New Frontier of Human–AI Collaboration
Scott M. Graffius’ Work Featured at ACM DIS ’25
Climbing the Ladder: The Head of Agile/PMO’s Organizational Proximity to the CEO is Closer Than Ever
Harness Sci-Fi and Speculative Design While Embracing Imperfection to Drive Innovation and Proactively Predict and Prepare for the Future
Scott M. Graffius’ “Agile Scrum” Book Featured in a Publication of the Associação Nacional de Educação Católica do Brasil (ANEC)
Setting Direction with OKRs and Tracking Progress with KPIs: A Guide for Agile, Project Management, and Tech Teams
AI Showcase Showdown: Ranking AI Accuracy on Project Management Basics
BookAuthority Features “Agile Scrum” by Scott M. Graffius in “10 Agile Software Development Books That Define the Field”
Exploring Team Dynamics, Adaptability, and Creative Problem-Solving Through Felix the Cat’s Metaphorical Toolkit
Mind Games and Master Plans: How PsyOps Exploit Psychological Phenomena
The “Pants-on-Fire Index for AI”
16 Causes of Technical Debt and How to Avoid It
PMI’s Infinity AI Gets the Basics of Team Development Alarmingly and Repeatedly Wrong
Agile for Unicorns: 7 Keys to Thrive; Scott M. Graffius’ Workshop
Scott M. Graffius’ “Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions” Featured in Prestigious National Academies of Sciences Publication
Meta and Anduril’s EagleEye and the Future of XR: How Gaming, AI, and Agile Are Transforming Defense
"Agile Protocol" and the Power of Satire, Parody, and Humor
AI in Agile: Benefits, Risks, Outlook
Hostinger Highlights Scott M. Graffius’ “Agile Protocol” Book in Feature on Software Projects
French Ministry of Culture Links to Scott M. Graffius Research in Their Guide for Responsible Digital Communication
National Science Foundation’s LTER Network Features Scott M. Graffius’ Phases of Team Development IP
Waterfall vs. Agile: What’s Fixed, What’s Flexible, and Why It Matters
Scott M. Graffius Delivering $2.3 Billion in Value Through AI, Agile, and Project/PMO Leadership
The Problem with Heroes in Agile
The 3 Vital Rules of Science: What They Are and Why They Matter
“Agile Protocol: The Transformation Ultimatum” Lands on the Amazon Best Sellers List!
Scott M. Graffius Recognized as a Top Thought Leader in Digital Disruption by Thinkers360
“Agile Protocol: The Transformation Ultimatum” by Scott M. Graffius Crashes the Book Scene with Satirical Firepower
NCKU in Taiwan Integrates Graffius' 'Phases of Team Development' into Its Curriculum
The Art and Science of Aligning Initiatives with Strategic Objectives
RGPV University Adds Scott M. Graffius’ "Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions" to Its Syllabus
Introducing ‘Engage or Fade: Decoding the Half-Life of Digital Resonance’ – A New Talk by Scott M. Graffius
Dropbox Company (Nira) Taps into Scott M. Graffius’ Expertise in Strategic Planning
Reporting Errors in a Publication: A Case Study on ‘Frontiers in Public Health’
NESEA Conference Session on Innovation Highlights Scott M. Graffius' 'Phases of Team Development'
U.S. Soccer Scores with Scott M. Graffius' Intellectual Property on Teamwork
U.S. Department of Commerce Partner (IEDC) Features Scott M. Graffius’ Intellectual Property
How Long Do Your Posts Live? AI Critiques Scott M. Graffius’ Research on the Half-Life of Social Media
Agile's Journey Through the Decades
Scott M. Graffius' Role in Advancing Project Management Institute (PMI) Standards Excellence
Most Valuable IT Certifications: Update for 2025
The PMI + Agile Alliance Merger: A Recipe for Success?
When Agile, AI, and Strategic Thinking Converge
Scott M. Graffius’ Phases of Team Development: 2025 Update
Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts: Update for 2025
Verizon Features Scott M. Graffius
Do Not Read This Article! An Exploration of the Streisand Effect and Other Phenomena
Scott M. Graffius' 'Phases of Team Development' was Spotlighted in Journal of Neurosurgery
Pinterest Japan Uses Graffius’ Research on Temporal Dynamics on Social Media Platforms
Hochschule Coburg (Coburg University) Germany Uses Scott M. Graffius’ Phases of Team Development IP in Coursework on Agile Development
Wild World of Team Dynamics [Updated Two-Minute Video]
EU Europass Teacher Academy Features Scott M. Graffius’ ‘Phases of Team Development’ in Leadership Training
Side-by-Side Comparison of Retrospectives and Hot Washes
Constructor University 2024 Advanced Software Technology Handbook References Scott M. Graffius' Work on Team Dynamics
Strategies for Medical Team Success Featured Scott M. Graffius’ ‘Phases of Team Development’ Intellectual Property
SBG Neumark — Europe’s Largest Distribution Transformer Plant — Powers Up with Scott M. Graffius’ Intellectual Property
Scott M. Graffius’ Intellectual Property was Employed by the NHS — the Largest Single-Payer Healthcare System in Europe
Luxury Unwrapped: The Ultimate Holiday Gift Guide for Every Budget
Singapore Institute of Technology Features Work of Scott M. Graffius
Tufts University Features Scott M. Graffius 'Phases of Team Development' Intellectual Property
'Cat Herders': Retelling the Massive Success Story
Pennsylvania State Agency Used Scott M. Graffius' Intellectual Property
Copyright Infringement in a Book Published by AuthorHouse / Author Solutions / The Najafi Companies: Publisher Fails to Respond or Take Required Action
Pinterest Inc. References Scott M. Graffius’ Research
Bournemouth University Used Scott M. Graffius’ Intellectual Property
‘Comparative Methodological Guidelines: Handbook for Educators’ Violates Scott M. Graffius’ Copyright
Japan Backlog User Group Event Featured Scott M. Graffius’ ‘Phases of Team Development’
TurningWest's 'Trial'
Radio Silence from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons on Report of Blatant Plagiarism in Their ‘Journal of Neurosurgery’ Publication
Supplement to Graffius' 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' Research: Typical Engagement Distribution Pattern for Social Media Posts
How Algorithms Shape the User Experience on Social Media Platforms
Thinkers360 Named Scott M. Graffius a Top Thought Leader on Agile
More articles are listed here.
How to Cite This Article
Graffius, S. M. (2026, October 14). A Critical Analysis of "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" and Its Use of Scott M. Graffius' Research. ScottGraffius.com. https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/critical-analysis-of-five-core-themes-of-intentional-team-formation.html
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Coming soon
Content Acknowledgements
Names, marks, and content are the property of their respective owners.
This article discusses the "Five core themes of intentional team formation" paper by Andrea N. Brennan, Christine R. Rollinson, Hannah Love, Ashley N. Schulz, Brendon Reidy, Jake J. Grossman, Ellyn M. Dickmann, Ellen R. Fisher, Luke McCormack, Andrew D. Richardson, Jalene LaMontagne, Matthew R. Helmus, and Daijiang Li, published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (Springer Nature) on 29 September 2026: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-09246-w.
The paper references Scott M. Graffius' "Phases of Team Development" research on teamwork tradecraft.
The paper is © 2026 The Author(s) and is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
This article includes brief excerpts from the paper, attributed to its authors and used under the fair use doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 107) for purposes of news reporting, commentary, and analysis. This article is independent commentary and is not affiliated with or endorsed by the paper's authors or Springer Nature.
"Phases of Team Development" is copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Tags and Hashtags
- Research Integrity
- Critical Analysis
- Team Development
- Team Dynamics
- Scientific Research Methods
- Academic Integrity
- Citation Accuracy
- Evidence-Based Practice
- Team Science
- Scott M. Graffius
- Springer Nature
- Phases of Team Development
- Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation
- Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
- #ResearchIntegrity
- #CriticalAnalysis
- #TeamDevelopment
- #ScientificIntegrity
- #ResearchMethods
- #TeamDynamics
- #AcademicIntegrity
- #EvidenceBased
- #TeamScience
- #ProjectManagement
- #SpringerNature
Post-Publication Notes
Supplements or updates to this article after publication appear here.
14 October 2026
As a recap, the paper "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation," published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, a Springer Nature journal, materially mischaracterizes Scott M. Graffius' research and contains additional significant issues. Concurrent with the publication of this article, Graffius followed up with leadership of the journal and its owner. Graffius notified Frank Vrancken Peeters, Chief Executive Officer of Springer Nature, and Gino D’Oca, Editor-in-Chief of Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, of the concerns by email. He also shared this article, which details the issues.
Immediately after Graffius sent his email, he received an auto-reply which stated, "Thank you for your message, which has been received and is recorded under Ticket Number [#11925368]. This is an automated response, but we will respond to your query as soon as possible."
If there are any additional supplements or updates, they will appear here.
21 October 2026
As of 21 October 2026, one week has passed since Graffius published his article and sent his email on 14 October 2026. No response has been received from Frank Vrancken Peeters, Springer Nature, Gino D’Oca, or Humanities and Social Sciences Communications.
If there are any additional supplements or updates, they will appear here.
Copyright
Copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Content on this site—including text, images, videos, and data—may not be used for training or input into any artificial intelligence, machine learning, or automatized learning systems, or published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.