ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026
Informal connections outweigh coauthorship ties in academic impact.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Informal connections outweigh coauthorship ties in academic impact.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.