Global training and the collaborative structure of elite U.S. science

Chaoqun Ni; Erjia Yan; Xiang Zheng

arxiv: 2605.18715 · v1 · pith:RODTSHRBnew · submitted 2026-05-18 · 💻 cs.DL

Global training and the collaborative structure of elite U.S. science

Erjia Yan , Chaoqun Ni , Xiang Zheng This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 00:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DL

keywords foreign trainingscientific outputcollaboration structureU.S. universitiesinstitutional placementelite researchteam size effects

0 comments

The pith

Foreign-trained faculty in U.S. universities show higher elite output due to institutional placement and collaborative teams rather than individual productivity.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper links faculty rosters to millions of publications to study how non-U.S. degree holders contribute to elite science. These faculty form one-tenth of professors yet produce disproportionate shares of publications and highly cited work, especially in certain fields and top schools. When researchers compare people in the same institution, field, rank, and year, the gaps in elite output shrink sharply. Teams mixing domestic and foreign trained scientists generate more top papers, but this advantage ties closely to having more collaborators. The conclusion is that foreign training shapes elite U.S. science as a structural element through where people work and how they team up.

Core claim

Faculty with non-U.S. degrees constitute one-tenth of the U.S. professoriate but account for larger shares of total publications and top-1% cited papers. This overrepresentation is concentrated in high-output disciplinary domains and research-intensive institutions. Within institution-domain-rank-year strata, however, differences in top-1% output, FWCI, and corresponding-author share attenuate sharply, indicating that much of the aggregate pattern reflects organizational placement rather than large within-context citation advantages. Mixed domestic-foreign faculty teams exhibit substantially elevated elite-output rates, and the association attenuates strongly after accounting for team size,

What carries the argument

Stratification by institution-domain-rank-year to isolate placement effects and analysis of mixed-team collaboration to identify scale as the driver of elevated output.

If this is right

Foreign-degree faculty are concentrated in high-output domains and research-intensive institutions.
Mixed domestic-foreign teams have higher elite-output rates linked to team size.
Topic-distinctiveness shows little evidence of foreign-degree faculty in rare research niches.
Within-context differences in citation advantages are small after stratification.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Universities could leverage mixed-team structures to increase elite research output.
Similar analyses in other national systems might reveal whether organizational placement plays a comparable role.
Adding measures of individual ability such as early career metrics could further test the role of training origin.

Load-bearing premise

That stratifying by institution, domain, rank, and year controls adequately for selection effects and unmeasured individual differences.

What would settle it

Large remaining differences in top-1% output or FWCI between foreign- and domestically-trained faculty even after further controls for personal publication history or PhD program quality.

read the original abstract

Globally trained scientific labor is a substantial component of U.S. universities, yet the organizational mechanisms linking foreign degree training to elite scientific output remain poorly understood. We link comprehensive U.S. faculty rosters to more than 12 million OpenAlex-indexed faculty-publication observations from 2011 to 2020. Faculty with non-U.S. degrees constitute one-tenth of the U.S. professoriate but account for larger shares of total publications and top-1% cited papers. This overrepresentation is concentrated in high-output disciplinary domains and research-intensive institutions. Within institution - domain - rank - year strata, however, differences in top-1% output, FWCI, and corresponding-author share attenuate sharply, indicating that much of the aggregate pattern reflects organizational placement rather than large within-context citation advantages. Collaboration structure further differentiates foreign- and domestically trained faculty: mixed domestic-foreign faculty teams exhibit substantially elevated elite-output rates, and the association attenuates strongly after accounting for team size, suggesting that collaboration scale is central to the pattern. Topic-distinctiveness analyses show little evidence that foreign-degree faculty occupy unusually rare research niches. Overall, foreign-degree training is best understood less as an individual productivity attribute than as a structural feature of elite U.S. science, operating through institutional concentration and collaborative integration.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Foreign-trained faculty overrepresentation in elite output mostly traces to institutional placement and larger mixed teams rather than within-stratum edges.

read the letter

The main takeaway from this paper is that the overrepresentation of foreign-degree faculty in elite outputs largely reflects where they end up and how they collaborate in larger mixed teams, rather than strong advantages once placed in the same context. Within those institution-domain-rank-year groups, the gaps in top papers and citations narrow sharply. They handle a large linked dataset well, covering faculty rosters and over 12 million publications from 2011-2020. The patterns on concentration in research-intensive spots and the collaboration mediation come through clearly. Adding the topic-distinctiveness check is a sensible step to address one possible confound. The weaker part is how completely the stratification captures everything. There might still be sorting on unobservables like sub-topic or pre-arrival productivity that the four-way cut does not fully remove. The abstract leaves the matching and sensitivity details thin, which makes it harder to assess if the attenuation is as clean as claimed. Readers working on scientometrics, team science, or faculty hiring policies would get the most from this. It offers concrete numbers on mobility and structure without overclaiming a new theory. The empirical scope is enough to merit a full referee process, even with likely requests for more checks. I would put it through peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper links U.S. faculty rosters to over 12 million OpenAlex publications (2011-2020) and shows that faculty with non-U.S. degrees are overrepresented in total output and top-1% cited papers, especially in high-output domains and research-intensive institutions. Within institution-domain-rank-year strata, differences in top-1% output, FWCI, and corresponding-author share attenuate sharply. Mixed domestic-foreign teams exhibit elevated elite-output rates that attenuate after controlling for team size; topic-distinctiveness checks find little evidence of foreign-trained faculty occupying rarer niches. The central interpretation is that foreign-degree training operates primarily through organizational placement and collaborative scale rather than large within-context individual advantages.

Significance. If the stratification and linkage results hold, the work offers a large-scale empirical demonstration that aggregate overrepresentation of globally trained faculty in elite U.S. science is largely structural, driven by institutional concentration and team-size effects rather than persistent within-stratum citation or productivity premiums. This has direct implications for understanding the organizational integration of international talent and for policy debates on academic immigration and collaboration incentives. The scale of the linked dataset (12 million observations) and the explicit within-strata attenuation findings are notable strengths.

major comments (2)

[Methods and Results sections on stratification] The central claim that within-strata differences attenuate sharply and thereby indicate organizational placement rather than within-context advantages rests on the assumption that the four-way stratification by institution-domain-rank-year fully absorbs selection on ability, prior productivity, and subfield specialization. The manuscript provides no robustness checks using finer subfield classifications, pre-hire publication records, or alternative matching specifications; residual heterogeneity on these dimensions could produce mechanical attenuation without supporting the substantive interpretation.
[Data and Methods] Details on the exact record-linkage procedures between faculty rosters and OpenAlex (name disambiguation thresholds, handling of missing degree data, and false-positive rates) are not reported. Because the strata definitions and all subsequent comparisons depend on accurate assignment of training origin and institutional affiliation, insufficient documentation of these steps undermines confidence in the reported attenuation patterns.

minor comments (2)

[Collaboration analyses] Clarify whether the team-size control is entered linearly or with higher-order terms, and report the exact coefficient on the mixed-team indicator after this control.
[Abstract and Introduction] The abstract states that foreign-degree faculty 'account for larger shares of total publications and top-1% cited papers'; provide the corresponding percentages or ratios in the main text for direct comparison with the within-strata results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report and the opportunity to clarify our approach. The comments highlight important issues regarding the interpretation of our stratification results and the documentation of data linkage. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will undertake.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Methods and Results sections on stratification] The central claim that within-strata differences attenuate sharply and thereby indicate organizational placement rather than within-context advantages rests on the assumption that the four-way stratification by institution-domain-rank-year fully absorbs selection on ability, prior productivity, and subfield specialization. The manuscript provides no robustness checks using finer subfield classifications, pre-hire publication records, or alternative matching specifications; residual heterogeneity on these dimensions could produce mechanical attenuation without supporting the substantive interpretation.

Authors: We agree that the four-way stratification cannot fully rule out residual selection on unobservables. The institution-domain-rank-year cells are already highly granular and capture the main organizational and career-stage contexts; further disaggregation by subfield quickly produces sparse strata with insufficient observations for reliable comparisons. Pre-hire publication records are not available in the linked dataset for the full faculty population. We will revise the manuscript to discuss these limitations explicitly in the Methods and Results sections and to report additional sensitivity analyses that restrict to more homogeneous domains where feasible. revision: partial
Referee: [Data and Methods] Details on the exact record-linkage procedures between faculty rosters and OpenAlex (name disambiguation thresholds, handling of missing degree data, and false-positive rates) are not reported. Because the strata definitions and all subsequent comparisons depend on accurate assignment of training origin and institutional affiliation, insufficient documentation of these steps undermines confidence in the reported attenuation patterns.

Authors: We will add a new subsection to the Data and Methods section that fully documents the record-linkage pipeline. This will include the name-disambiguation procedure and similarity thresholds applied, rules for handling missing degree information, and quantitative estimates of linkage error rates obtained from manual validation samples. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved

Robustness checks that require pre-hire publication records or substantially finer subfield classifications, as these data elements are not available in the current linked dataset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical comparisons on external linked data

full rationale

This observational study links external U.S. faculty rosters to OpenAlex publication records (2011-2020) and performs within-stratum comparisons of top-1% output, FWCI, and corresponding-author share. The central claims rest on empirical attenuation after four-way stratification and team-size controls rather than any fitted parameter, self-referential definition, or self-citation chain. No equations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems appear in the derivation; results are presented as descriptive patterns from the linked datasets. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Empirical observational study with no free parameters or invented entities; relies on data quality and control assumptions.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Faculty rosters can be accurately linked to OpenAlex publication records to determine non-U.S. degree status, institutional affiliation, rank, and citation metrics without substantial error or bias.
This linkage underpins all overrepresentation calculations, stratification, and collaboration analyses.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5761 in / 1470 out tokens · 81648 ms · 2026-05-20T00:30:23.282755+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Within institution × domain × rank × year strata, however, differences in top-1% output, FWCI, and corresponding-author share attenuate sharply, indicating that much of the aggregate pattern reflects organizational placement rather than large within-context citation advantages.
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Mixed domestic–foreign faculty teams exhibit substantially elevated elite-output rates, and the association attenuates strongly after accounting for team size.

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

J. Gu, X. Pan, S. Zhang, J. Chen, International mobility matters: Research collaboration and scientific productivity. Journal of Informetrics 18, 101522 (2024)

work page 2024
[2]

R. B. Freeman, Immigration, international collaboration, and innovation: Science and technology policy in the global economy. Innovation policy and the economy 15, 153-175 (2015)

work page 2015
[3]

De Wit, Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe (Information Age Pub Incorporated, 2009)

H. De Wit, Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe (Information Age Pub Incorporated, 2009)

work page 2009
[4]

R. B. Freeman, Globalization of scientific and engineering talent: international mobility of students, workers, and ideas and the world economy. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 19, 393-406 (2010)

work page 2010
[5]

M. A. Barteau, S. M. Rovito, International talent programs in the changing global environment (National Academies Press, 2024)

work page 2024
[6]

Yuret, An analysis of the foreign-educated elite academics in the United States

T. Yuret, An analysis of the foreign-educated elite academics in the United States. Journal of Informetrics 11, 358-370 (2017)

work page 2017
[7]

Mamiseishvili, Characteristics, job satisfaction, and workplace perceptions of foreign- born faculty at public 2-year institutions

K. Mamiseishvili, Characteristics, job satisfaction, and workplace perceptions of foreign- born faculty at public 2-year institutions. Community College Review 39, 26-45 (2011)

work page 2011
[8]

T. A. Velema, The contingent nature of brain gain and brain circulation: Their foreign context and the impact of return scientists on the scientific community in their country of origin. Scientometrics 93, 893-913 (2012)

work page 2012
[9]

P. E. Stephan, S. G. Levin, Exceptional contributions to US science by the foreign-born and foreign-educated. Population research and Policy review 20, 59-79 (2001)

work page 2001
[10]

D. Kim, S. B. Twombly, L. Wolf-Wendel, A. A. Belin, Understanding career mobility of professors: Does Foreign-born status matter? Innovative Higher Education 45, 471-488 (2020)

work page 2020
[11]

C. S. Wagner, L. Leydesdorff, Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research policy 34, 1608-1618 (2005)

work page 2005
[12]

Franzoni, G

C. Franzoni, G. Scellato, P. Stephan, Foreign-born scientists: mobility patterns for 16 countries. Nature biotechnology 30, 1250-1253 (2012)

work page 2012
[13]

J. J. Lee, C. Rice, Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination. Higher education 53, 381-409 (2007)

work page 2007
[14]

Mamiseishvili, V

K. Mamiseishvili, V. J. Rosser, International and citizen faculty in the United States: An examination of their productivity at research universities. Research in Higher Education 51, 88-107 (2010)

work page 2010
[15]

Wuchty, B

S. Wuchty, B. F. Jones, B. Uzzi, The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316, 1036-1039 (2007)

work page 2007
[16]

S. M. Fiore, Interdisciplinarity as teamwork how the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Research 39, 251-277 (2008)

work page 2008
[17]

L. Wu, D. Wang, J. A. Evans, Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature 566, 378-382 (2019)

work page 2019
[18]

B. F. Jones, S. Wuchty, B. Uzzi, Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. science 322, 1259-1262 (2008)

work page 2008
[19]

Larivière, Y

V. Larivière, Y. Gingras, C. R. Sugimoto, A. Tsou, Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66, 1323-1332 (2015)

work page 1900
[20]

K. L. Webber, Research productivity of foreign-and US-born faculty: Differences by time on task. Higher Education 64, 709-729 (2012)

work page 2012
[21]

Tripodi et al., Tenure and research trajectories

G. Tripodi et al., Tenure and research trajectories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122, e2500322122 (2025)

work page 2025
[22]

OpenAlex: A fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts

J. Priem, H. Piwowar, R. Orr, OpenAlex: A fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01833 (2022)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[23]

C. R. Sugimoto et al., Scientists have most impact when they're free to move. Nature 550, 29-31 (2017)

work page 2017
[24]

Stephan, How economics shapes science (Harvard University Press, 2015)

P. Stephan, How economics shapes science (Harvard University Press, 2015)

work page 2015
[25]

W. R. Kerr, W. F. Lincoln, The supply side of innovation: H-1B visa reforms and US ethnic invention. Journal of Labor Economics 28, 473-508 (2010)

work page 2010
[26]

G. J. Borjas (1987) Self-selection and the earnings of immigrants. (National Bureau of Economic Research)

work page 1987
[27]

D. W. Hosmer Jr, S. Lemeshow, R. X. Sturdivant, Applied logistic regression (John Wiley & Sons, 2013)

work page 2013
[28]

R. W. Fairlie, An extension of the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition technique to logit and probit models. Journal of economic and social measurement 30, 305-316 (2005)

work page 2005
[29]

Zheng, C

X. Zheng, C. Ni, The tenure debate: how US faculty change their research practices post-tenure. iConference 2024 Proceedings (2024)

work page 2024
[30]

American Council on Education (2026) 2025 Institutional Classification

work page 2026
[31]

AAD versions

J. J. Heckman, E. Leamer, Handbook of econometrics. (2009). Supplementary Fig. S1. Career-stage and cohort heterogeneity in foreign-degree outcomes. Foreign- and domestically trained faculty are compared across career stage, years since degree, and cohort for three core outcomes: top-1% papers per faculty-year, publications per faculty-year, and mixed-tea...

work page 2009
[32]

Models were estimated using BigQuery ML logistic regression with L2 regularization (λ = 0.1)

Top1ijt Both models included identical controls: ● Disciplinary fixed effects (umbrella domain), ● Publication year fixed effects, ● Institution fixed effects, ● Research intensity classification, ● Institutional control, ● Corresponding-author status, ● Interaction between foreign-trained status and leadership role. Models were estimated using BigQuery M...

work page 2011
[33]

disciplinary domain,

work page
[34]

institutional research intensity,

work page
[35]

private nonprofit),

institution type (public vs. private nonprofit),

work page
[36]

United States

academic rank/career stage. For each specification, we computed the standardized foreign–domestic elite-output gap by predicting publication probabilities under counterfactual foreign and domestic assignments while holding the observed covariate distribution fixed. Specifically, predicted elite probabilities were generated twice for each observation: (1) ...

work page 2011

[1] [1]

J. Gu, X. Pan, S. Zhang, J. Chen, International mobility matters: Research collaboration and scientific productivity. Journal of Informetrics 18, 101522 (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [2]

R. B. Freeman, Immigration, international collaboration, and innovation: Science and technology policy in the global economy. Innovation policy and the economy 15, 153-175 (2015)

work page 2015

[3] [3]

De Wit, Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe (Information Age Pub Incorporated, 2009)

H. De Wit, Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe (Information Age Pub Incorporated, 2009)

work page 2009

[4] [4]

R. B. Freeman, Globalization of scientific and engineering talent: international mobility of students, workers, and ideas and the world economy. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 19, 393-406 (2010)

work page 2010

[5] [5]

M. A. Barteau, S. M. Rovito, International talent programs in the changing global environment (National Academies Press, 2024)

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Yuret, An analysis of the foreign-educated elite academics in the United States

T. Yuret, An analysis of the foreign-educated elite academics in the United States. Journal of Informetrics 11, 358-370 (2017)

work page 2017

[7] [7]

Mamiseishvili, Characteristics, job satisfaction, and workplace perceptions of foreign- born faculty at public 2-year institutions

K. Mamiseishvili, Characteristics, job satisfaction, and workplace perceptions of foreign- born faculty at public 2-year institutions. Community College Review 39, 26-45 (2011)

work page 2011

[8] [8]

T. A. Velema, The contingent nature of brain gain and brain circulation: Their foreign context and the impact of return scientists on the scientific community in their country of origin. Scientometrics 93, 893-913 (2012)

work page 2012

[9] [9]

P. E. Stephan, S. G. Levin, Exceptional contributions to US science by the foreign-born and foreign-educated. Population research and Policy review 20, 59-79 (2001)

work page 2001

[10] [10]

D. Kim, S. B. Twombly, L. Wolf-Wendel, A. A. Belin, Understanding career mobility of professors: Does Foreign-born status matter? Innovative Higher Education 45, 471-488 (2020)

work page 2020

[11] [11]

C. S. Wagner, L. Leydesdorff, Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research policy 34, 1608-1618 (2005)

work page 2005

[12] [12]

Franzoni, G

C. Franzoni, G. Scellato, P. Stephan, Foreign-born scientists: mobility patterns for 16 countries. Nature biotechnology 30, 1250-1253 (2012)

work page 2012

[13] [13]

J. J. Lee, C. Rice, Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination. Higher education 53, 381-409 (2007)

work page 2007

[14] [14]

Mamiseishvili, V

K. Mamiseishvili, V. J. Rosser, International and citizen faculty in the United States: An examination of their productivity at research universities. Research in Higher Education 51, 88-107 (2010)

work page 2010

[15] [15]

Wuchty, B

S. Wuchty, B. F. Jones, B. Uzzi, The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316, 1036-1039 (2007)

work page 2007

[16] [16]

S. M. Fiore, Interdisciplinarity as teamwork how the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Research 39, 251-277 (2008)

work page 2008

[17] [17]

L. Wu, D. Wang, J. A. Evans, Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature 566, 378-382 (2019)

work page 2019

[18] [18]

B. F. Jones, S. Wuchty, B. Uzzi, Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. science 322, 1259-1262 (2008)

work page 2008

[19] [19]

Larivière, Y

V. Larivière, Y. Gingras, C. R. Sugimoto, A. Tsou, Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66, 1323-1332 (2015)

work page 1900

[20] [20]

K. L. Webber, Research productivity of foreign-and US-born faculty: Differences by time on task. Higher Education 64, 709-729 (2012)

work page 2012

[21] [21]

Tripodi et al., Tenure and research trajectories

G. Tripodi et al., Tenure and research trajectories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122, e2500322122 (2025)

work page 2025

[22] [22]

OpenAlex: A fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts

J. Priem, H. Piwowar, R. Orr, OpenAlex: A fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01833 (2022)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

[23] [23]

C. R. Sugimoto et al., Scientists have most impact when they're free to move. Nature 550, 29-31 (2017)

work page 2017

[24] [24]

Stephan, How economics shapes science (Harvard University Press, 2015)

P. Stephan, How economics shapes science (Harvard University Press, 2015)

work page 2015

[25] [25]

W. R. Kerr, W. F. Lincoln, The supply side of innovation: H-1B visa reforms and US ethnic invention. Journal of Labor Economics 28, 473-508 (2010)

work page 2010

[26] [26]

G. J. Borjas (1987) Self-selection and the earnings of immigrants. (National Bureau of Economic Research)

work page 1987

[27] [27]

D. W. Hosmer Jr, S. Lemeshow, R. X. Sturdivant, Applied logistic regression (John Wiley & Sons, 2013)

work page 2013

[28] [28]

R. W. Fairlie, An extension of the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition technique to logit and probit models. Journal of economic and social measurement 30, 305-316 (2005)

work page 2005

[29] [29]

Zheng, C

X. Zheng, C. Ni, The tenure debate: how US faculty change their research practices post-tenure. iConference 2024 Proceedings (2024)

work page 2024

[30] [30]

American Council on Education (2026) 2025 Institutional Classification

work page 2026

[31] [31]

AAD versions

J. J. Heckman, E. Leamer, Handbook of econometrics. (2009). Supplementary Fig. S1. Career-stage and cohort heterogeneity in foreign-degree outcomes. Foreign- and domestically trained faculty are compared across career stage, years since degree, and cohort for three core outcomes: top-1% papers per faculty-year, publications per faculty-year, and mixed-tea...

work page 2009

[32] [32]

Models were estimated using BigQuery ML logistic regression with L2 regularization (λ = 0.1)

Top1ijt Both models included identical controls: ● Disciplinary fixed effects (umbrella domain), ● Publication year fixed effects, ● Institution fixed effects, ● Research intensity classification, ● Institutional control, ● Corresponding-author status, ● Interaction between foreign-trained status and leadership role. Models were estimated using BigQuery M...

work page 2011

[33] [33]

disciplinary domain,

work page

[34] [34]

institutional research intensity,

work page

[35] [35]

private nonprofit),

institution type (public vs. private nonprofit),

work page

[36] [36]

United States

academic rank/career stage. For each specification, we computed the standardized foreign–domestic elite-output gap by predicting publication probabilities under counterfactual foreign and domestic assignments while holding the observed covariate distribution fixed. Specifically, predicted elite probabilities were generated twice for each observation: (1) ...

work page 2011