To address these questions, we quantitatively examined collaborative relationships among authors in the field of economics, aiming to uncover the characteristics of super partnerships and their career impacts.

Defining Intimacy in Scientific Collaboration

We defined super and strong relationships based on two criteria: the duration of collaboration and the number of their co-authored papers. In the end, we identified 5,722 pairs of authors with super collaborative relationships and 6,624 pairs with strong collaborative relationships in Economics. Our research focuses on super-partnerships between two scholars, and these two scholars are called a pair of super-partners. Notably, 70.4% of super partners come from the same country, while 67.8% are from different institutions. Also, our findings suggest that a close, persistent collaboration is more likely between scholars of similar seniority.

Gender Dynamics in Super Partnerships

There’s a saying: “Men and women working together makes the task easier.” Does this apply to super partnerships? The answer may differ from expectations. The number of men far exceeds that of women, indicating a predominance of male participation in super and strong partnerships. Among the three types of gender combinations for super and strong partners, male-male (MM) accounts for 75.79% versus 67.59% of the total, male-female (MF) for 21.63% versus 27.88%, and female-female (FF) for only 2.58% versus 4.53%. Overall, men are more likely to collaborate with other men, while the proportion of super partnerships among women is the lowest. This highlights significant gender disparities in partner selection in economics.

Stability of Super Partnerships

As time progresses, do collaborative relationships among super partners remain stable? Super partnerships go beyond merely producing more papers; they emphasize consistently high-quality research. Stability is crucial. Our study indicates that the more stable a partnership—measured by the consistency of co-authored publications—the more likely it is to have a significant academic impact, such as higher citation counts. Interestingly, partnerships lasting 10 to 20 years show the highest stability. However, those extending beyond 30 years may fluctuate in stability, suggesting that overly long collaborations could lose their initial momentum. Also, high stability does not necessarily mean a larger impact for super-partnerships. This aligns with previous research indicating that collaborations that become too stable might become insular, potentially limiting new ideas.

The stability of super relationships varies among gender combinations. For male scholars, super-partnerships with other male scholars are more attractive and more stable. However, for female scholars, collaboration with male scholars is characterized by higher stability and longer collaboration period, which also confirms our hypothesis that gender disparities do exist in super-partnerships and affect the stability of the collaboration.

Benefits of Super Collaborations

What advantages do super collaborations offer to both parties? Our research reveals that super partnerships significantly enhance both productivity and academic influence. Scholars in super partnerships tend to produce more papers annually than those in regular collaborations. Additionally, the citation of their papers is higher, indicating that super partners are not just prolific; their work also significantly shapes the field. By clarifying the contribution of super-partnerships to scholars of different genders, this paper reveals that in super-partnerships, male scholars benefit from increased citation counts, reflecting improved research quality, while female scholars in super partnerships experience a notable increase in publication numbers, suggesting that these partnerships help mitigate barriers women face in academic productivity.

In this study, super collaborative relationships highlight the advantages of social trust and long-term commitments (Hamel et al., 2006).This mirrors the collaboration seen in the “apostle effect”: enduring, outstanding cooperation requires mutual commitment between partners (Petersen, 2015).

The Dynamics of Lasting Collaborations

Why is it easier for two individuals to establish enduring and exceptional collaborative relationships? An article named “It takes two to think,” published in Nature Biotechnology, suggests that effective scientific research hinges on finding a partner for frequent project discussions. One-on-one project discussions are more effective than brainstorming sessions with larger groups (three or more participants). When working with just one other person, both individuals can deeply engage in advancing their discussion. Two individuals supporting each other’s ideas can think more creatively without distraction. Collaborating with just one partner also fosters a relaxed environment conducive to entering a “flow” state (Yanai et al., 2024). A deeper reason may be that collaboration is based on the expectation of ongoing interaction rather than the higher benefits from cooperation (Struwe et al., 2024).

Our work aims to enhance public understanding of super collaborations or intimate partnerships based on mutual commitment. We find that partnerships built on a deep level of trust can yield positive effects for both partners. Therefore, how to establish super partnerships and create balanced collaborations to maximize benefits are crucial concerns for both scholars and team leaders (Petersen, 2015, https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1501444112). By understanding the dynamics of super partnerships, scholars, institutions, and policymakers can collaborate to foster relationships that advance individual careers and push the boundaries of scientific discovery. Moving forward, creating a more inclusive and diverse collaborative environment will be key to ensuring the benefits of super partnerships are accessible to all.