  As the increasing complexity of large-scale research requires the combined
efforts of scientists with expertise in different fields, the advantages and
costs of interdisciplinary scholarship have taken center stage in current
debates on scientific production. Here we conduct a comparative assessment of
the scientific success of specialized and interdisciplinary researchers in
modern science. Drawing on comprehensive data sets on scientific production, we
propose a two-pronged approach to interdisciplinarity. For each scientist, we
distinguish between background interdisciplinarity, rooted in knowledge
accumulated over time, and social interdisciplinarity, stemming from exposure
to collaborators' knowledge. We find that, while abandoning specialization in
favor of moderate degrees of background interdisciplinarity deteriorates
performance, very interdisciplinary scientists outperform specialized ones, at
all career stages. Moreover, successful scientists tend to intensify the
heterogeneity of collaborators and to match the diversity of their network with
the diversity of their background. Collaboration sustains performance by
facilitating knowledge diffusion, acquisition and creation. Successful
scientists tend to absorb a larger fraction of their collaborators' knowledge,
and at a faster pace, than less successful ones. Collaboration also provides
successful scientists with opportunities for the cross-fertilization of ideas
and the synergistic creation of new knowledge. These results can inspire
scientists to shape successful careers, research institutions to develop
effective recruitment policies, and funding agencies to award grants of
enhanced impact.
