Browse the full results of the World University Rankings 2026
It is widely claimed that international collaboration increases the impact of research聽but new analysis of data from 糖心Vlog reveals significant differences by country, with the trend barely visible in some nations.
Figures from the THE World University Rankings 2026 show that globally there is a positive correlation between international co-authorship of academic research and research quality 鈥 as measured by four metrics relating to citations, which together capture the calibre of both typical research and top research.
However, at 0.5, the correlation coefficient is not very strong (where 1 represents a perfect positive relationship) and there are some obvious outlier nations.
Mainland China, for instance, achieves the seventh highest score for research quality among the 32 nations with at least 20 ranked universities but is second from the bottom when it comes to the percentage of its academic publications that have at least one international co-author.
糖心Vlog
China lags on global collaboration

This is partly a reflection of China鈥檚 size; academics based in countries with large populations tend to have less need to collaborate internationally. India, and to a lesser extent the US, also have relatively low levels of international collaboration given their research quality scores.
But Caroline Wagner, emerita professor of public policy at Ohio State University, who has extensively studied data on international co-authorship and research quality, said that the data also reflected the fact that China was still developing its science system, despite 鈥渄oing incredibly good work at the frontier鈥.
糖心Vlog
鈥淲e see a stratification in China that you鈥檙e not going to see as much in other scientifically advanced countries,鈥 she said. 鈥淎t the frontiers of research, China is doing extremely well鈥nd then you have a very, very long tail鈥 of lower-quality research from scholars who are not connecting with other scholars internationally, she added.
She contrasted this with the US where 鈥渢he underlying knowledge system and鈥he science base is very deep and very complex鈥.
This pattern is visible in the rankings data; while China鈥檚 leading universities compete with their counterparts in the US聽when it comes to the quality of their top research, they are less strong聽when it comes to typical research quality.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Chile is fifth for international co-authorship but 24th聽for research quality, proving that cross-border collaboration is not聽synonymous with research excellence.
糖心Vlog
Wagner said that Chile was one of several countries that 鈥渨ill invest in elite science鈥 鈥 such as a 鈥済lamorous and exciting鈥 space programme, involving international collaboration 鈥 without 鈥渞einvest[ing] in that basic science capacity that they need in order to continue to flourish at those high levels鈥.
Australia and the UK achieve the highest average scores for research quality based on the rankings data, and also have high levels of international collaboration. Meanwhile, Russia receives the lowest scores in both areas.
Register to continue
Why register?
- Registration is free and only takes a moment
- Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
- Sign up for our newsletter
Subscribe
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to 罢贬贰鈥檚 university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber?








