The impact of team knowledge network structure on team creativity has seldom been explored. To address this gap, we argue that research and development (R&D) teams' radical creativity is not only associated with the source of diversified knowledge (insiders of the team, outsiders of the team and internet professional forums), but also with team knowledge network centrality. Data from 32 R&D teams in seven research institutions support our contention that diversified knowledge from all three sources positively affects team radical creativity. In addition, the betweenness centrality of R&D team knowledge networks moderates the relationship between two sources of diversified knowledge (insiders of the team and outsiders of the team) and team radical creativity.

How do scientists’ ego-centered co-authorship networks affect their research productivity and impact during the early career phase? Do co-authorship networks evolve differently for outstanding scientists vs. ordinary scientists? Our study responded to these questions by demonstrating that scientists’ co-authorship network size and betweenness centrality of their co-authorship network positively affected both their research productivity and research impact. Scientists’ tie strength diversity of their co-authorship network moderated the relationship between their ego-network size and their research performance. Their co-authorship network’s degree centralization moderated the relationship between their betweenness centrality and research performance. Further, the size and betweenness centrality of the co-authorship network were significantly different between the two groups of scientists since their fourth working year. Outstanding scientists had a larger co-authorship network and their positions in the co-authorship network were more central than those of ordinary scientists. Implications for scientists and policy makers in science and higher education are discussed