Empirical studies such as Goyal, van der Leij and Moraga (2006) or Newman (2004) show that
scientific collaboration networks present a highly unequal and hierarchical distribution of links.
This implies that some researchers can be much more active and productive than others and,
consequently, they can enjoy a much better scientific reputation. One may think that big intrinsical
differences among researchers can constitute the main driving force behind these huge inequalities.
We propose a model that show how almost identical individuals self-organize themselves in a very
unequal and hierarchical structure as is observed in the real-world co-authorship networks. In
consequence, this model provides an incentives-based explanation of that empirical evidence.