This study investigates how differing national research governance models impact academic performance by comparing European Research Council (ERC) grant winners in the social sciences and humanities from France and the Netherlands. Situated within the broader context of centralized versus decentralized research systems, the analysis aims to understand how these structures shape publication trends, thematic diversity, and collaboration patterns. Drawing on Scopus and SciVal data covering 9996 publications by 305 ERC winners between 2019 and 2023, we employed a multi-method approach, including latent Dirichlet allocation for topic modeling, compound annual growth rate analysis, and co-authorship network analysis. The results show that neuroscience, climate change, and psychology are dominant domains, with language and linguistics particularly prevalent in France and law and political science in the Netherlands. French ERC winners are more likely to be affiliated with national or sectoral institutions, whereas in the Netherlands, elite universities dominate. Collaboration emerged as a key success factor, with an average of four co-authors per publication and network analyses revealing central figures who bridge topical clusters. International collaborations were consistently linked with higher visibility, while single-authored publications showed limited impact. These findings suggest that institutional context and collaborative practices significantly shape research performance in both countries.

Collaboration between researchers has been shown to influence their productivity and scientific impact. Although these ties have been widely discussed in the literature, the nature of the co-authorship networks between the most successful scholars remains a question. To provide an answer, this study conducts a cross-case analysis of the collaboration networks between Highly Cited Researchers, focusing on the research output and co-authorship patterns in Highly Cited Papers across three award categories: Clinical Medicine, Materials Science, and Social Sciences. Our findings indicate that there are category-specific differences in publication output and the intensity of collaboration between Highly Cited Researchers. Notably, Highly Cited Researchers in the Social Sciences demonstrate a less collaborative approach to research than those in Clinical Medicine and Materials Science. While Highly Cited Researchers in all three categories featured interconnected collaboration networks among themselves, those in Clinical Medicine and Materials Science exhibited a more collaborative environment, while those in Social Sciences showed a tendency towards independent research efforts. The case of Social Sciences is further evidenced by higher fragmentation within the collaboration network of Social Sciences, indicating a less cohesive collaborative framework. The analysis of the Giant Component—the largest cohesive subset of the network—revealed that it is less representative of the overall network structure in the Social Sciences than in Clinical Medicine and Materials Science. Finally, the centrality measures indicated that Highly Cited Researchers with high betweenness and closeness centrality act as crucial bridges within each network, significantly shaping the structural cohesion and collaborative dynamics of their respective fields.