When preparing a research article, academics engage in informal intellectual collaboration by asking their colleagues for feedback. This collaboration gives rise to a social network between academics. We study whether informal intellectual collaboration with an academic who is more central in this social network results in a research article having higher scientific impact. To address the well-known reflection problem in estimating network effects, we use the assignment of discussants at NBER summer institutes as a quasi-natural experiment. We show that manuscripts discussed by a discussant with a 10% higher than average Bonacich centrality rank results in 1.4% more citations and a 5% higher probability that an article is published in a top journal. To illustrate our results, we develop a structural model in which a positive externality from intellectual collaboration implies that collaborating with a more central colleague results in larger scientific impact of the research article.
Cite as: Georg, Co-Pierre, Opolot, Daniel C. and Rose, Michael E. (2016): "The Importance of Informal Intellectual Collaboration with Central Colleagues", SSRN 2877586
We examine the flow information in financial economics with respect to influential researchers. We proxy influence in the profession with different centrality measures in a social network connecting authors and acknowledged commenters of 6406 full research articles published between 1997 and 2011. More cited researchers tend to rank higher according to eigenvector centrality, but less so over time. Contrary to widespread belief, citation and publication stock correlate weakly with being acknowledged often. Giving and receiving comments furthermore vary with the academic life cycle. Our ranking hence provide a new way to measure influence.
Cite as: Georg, Co-Pierre and Rose, Michael E. (2015): "Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall, Who is the Most Central of Them all?", SSRN 2877586