Core or periphery? Research productivity of Chinese engineering PhDs trained in the USA and Japan

Abstract

Global inequalities in knowledge production raise concerns that doctoral training outside the Anglo-American core may yield weaker research returns because peripheral universities depend on core journals and networks. The centre–periphery model suggests that graduates trained in core systems may retain lasting research advantages. However, Japan has emerged as a regional hub whose doctoral programs may challenge this prediction. This study examines whether doctoral training location is associated with the subsequent research performance of Chinese engineering PhDs trained in the global core, represented by the USA, and a regional core, represented by Japan. Two cohorts of graduates from 2010 to 2011 were linked to publication records in SciVal, and regression analyses examined three dimensions of research performance: quantity, citation-based quality, and international collaboration. The analysis detects no statistically significant difference in publication counts or the number of internationally co-authored publications. However, US-trained graduates show higher citation impact and more publications in the top 1% by citation percentile. These findings indicate no statistically detectable difference in overall publication output or internationally co-authored publication output in the main specification, while differences remain in several citation-based indicators. The study refines centre–periphery theory by highlighting Japan’s capacity to narrow, though not eliminate, disparities in highly cited research and points to a differentiated geography of doctoral advantages in an increasingly multipolar academic landscape.