ABSTRACT The contribution of internationality in pursuing research is well‐known. Whilst the policy agenda in many Asian countries includes attracting academic staff (Internationals and Returnees—conceptualized here under Simmel's ‘stranger’ concept), little is known in relation to how often they work with colleagues at their institutions and, consequently, how much such collaboration yields benefits when it comes to publishing. We investigate, via observable co‐authorships, the quality of publications out of different combinations of institutional collaborations in research‐intensive Chinese mainland universities to unpack otherwise hidden patterns of institutional internationality. Checking a variety of covariates derived from funding acknowledgements and extra‐institutional co‐authorships, we predict which collaboration combinations are more likely to generate higher citations over Scopus or higher likelihood of publishing in ‘Q1’ journals. The findings reveal that, although Internationals and Returnees can bring valuable aspects in terms of internationality to institutions, they are relatively scarcely involved in co‐authoring. Nevertheless, when internationals and/or Returnees publish with Locals, those circumstances reveal high degrees of success. Moreover, not all combinations yield advantages to the same extent, building up evidence that internationality within institutions is beneficial but at the same time dependent on specific research goals.
Marini et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: