Informal connections outweigh coauthorship ties in academic impact

Past work has documented the importance of formal collaboration, particularly coauthorship, in increasing research productivity and innovation. However, we know much less about how informal collaboration relates to publication success. Informal ties facilitate the exchange of intangible resources like mentoring, guidance, and feedback. These interactions form a support structure that aims to improve ideas and facilitate the successful development of research projects. However, these informal exchanges are difficult to measure because they do not leave as clear a trail as coauthorship ties. We uncover this layer of informal communication around scholarly outputs by parsing the information contained in the acknowledgment sections of published articles. Our data include [Formula: see text] political science articles authored by [Formula: see text] scholars from 2003 to 2023. We analyze scholars' embeddedness in this informal structure of collaboration and reveal that 1) informal ties create a larger and denser network of support than coauthorship ties; 2) disconnection from informal networks is associated with lower productivity and impact; and 3) informal ties are a more relevant predictor of publication success than formal collaborations (i.e., coauthorship), even after matching for gender, seniority, methodological orientation, geographical location, and institutional prestige. Using coarsened exact matching and random forest regressions, we demonstrate that informal support structures are significantly associated with citation impact, creating gaps in who benefits from these connections.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2026-04-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2511050123
Primary Topic
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Informal connections outweigh coauthorship ties in academic impact

Sandra González‐Bailón, Guy Grossman, William Dinneen, Carolina Torreblanca et al.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
article

Informal connections outweigh coauthorship ties in academic impact

Sandra González‐Bailón, Guy Grossman, William Dinneen, Carolina Torreblanca, Lluís Danús
article en

Abstract

Past work has documented the importance of formal collaboration, particularly coauthorship, in increasing research productivity and innovation. However, we know much less about how informal collaboration relates to publication success. Informal ties facilitate the exchange of intangible resources like mentoring, guidance, and feedback. These interactions form a support structure that aims to improve ideas and facilitate the successful development of research projects. However, these informal exchanges are difficult to measure because they do not leave as clear a trail as coauthorship ties. We uncover this layer of informal communication around scholarly outputs by parsing the information contained in the acknowledgment sections of published articles. Our data include [Formula: see text] political science articles authored by [Formula: see text] scholars from 2003 to 2023. We analyze scholars' embeddedness in this informal structure of collaboration and reveal that 1) informal ties create a larger and denser network of support than coauthorship ties; 2) disconnection from informal networks is associated with lower productivity and impact; and 3) informal ties are a more relevant predictor of publication success than formal collaborations (i.e., coauthorship), even after matching for gender, seniority, methodological orientation, geographical location, and institutional prestige. Using coarsened exact matching and random forest regressions, we demonstrate that informal support structures are significantly associated with citation impact, creating gaps in who benefits from these connections.

Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesVol. 123(18)
California University of Pennsylvania (US), Stanford Medicine (US), Stanford University (US)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.