Faculty mobility is one of the most important research issues in the field of higher education. Reasonable faculty mobility can actively promote the fair, coordinated, balanced, healthy, and sustainable development of higher education. Scientific impact is the best proof of faculty members’ research abilities and is often represented by the quality of their articles. In particular, the gradual increase in citations of high-quality papers is undoubtedly an important reflection of healthy development in the academic field. This paper aims to explore the influence of faculty mobility on scientific impact, while comparative analysis is used to investigate whether there are disciplinary differences in the relationship between faculty mobility and scientific impact. Four major disciplines—sociology, mathematics, mechanical engineering, and philosophy—are selected as the scope of this study. Articles in these four major disciplines from 2000 to 2020 are obtained from the Web of Science, and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test are used to analyze the collected data. The results indicate the following: (1) faculty mobility has increased, with differences across disciplines; (2) mobility leads to a decrease in the number of citations, which decreases significantly with increased mobility frequency; and (3) the impact of mobility has disciplinary differences, with a relatively obvious decrease in mechanical engineering.

With the accelerating globalization and rapid development of science and technology, scientific collaboration has become a key driver of knowledge production, yet its patterns vary significantly across disciplines. This study aims to explore the disciplinary differences in scholars’ scientific collaboration patterns and their underlying mechanisms. Data were collected from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, covering papers from four disciplines: mathematics, mechanical engineering, philosophy, and sociology. Using social network analysis, we examined core network metrics (degree centrality, neighbor connectivity, clustering coefficient) in collaboration networks, analyzed collaboration patterns across scholars of different academic ages, and compared the academic age distribution of collaborators and network characteristics across career stages. Key findings include the following. (1) Mechanical engineering exhibits the highest and most stable clustering coefficient (mean 0.62) across all academic ages, reflecting tight team collaboration, with degree centrality increasing fastest with academic age (3.2 times higher for senior vs. beginner scholars), driven by its reliance on experimental resources and skill division. (2) Philosophy shows high degree centrality in early career stages (mean 0.38 for beginners) but a sharp decline in clustering coefficient in senior stages (from 0.42 to 0.17), indicating broad early collaboration but loose later ties due to individualized knowledge production. (3) Mathematics scholars prefer collaborating with high-centrality peers (higher neighbor connectivity, mean 0.51), while sociology shows more inclusive collaboration with dispersed partner centrality.