View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Influence of International Branch Campuses on Regional University Research Networks: The Case of Greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Influence of International Branch Campuses on Regional University Research Networks: The Case of Greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Language: English
Authors: Pieter E. Stek, Han Woo Park
Source: Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research. 2025 90(5):1235-1256.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 22
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Multicampus Colleges, Foreign Countries, Universities, Scientific Research, Productivity, Publications, Citations (References), Authors, Networks, International Programs, Influences
Geographic Terms: Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur)
DOI: 10.1007/s10734-024-01374-z
ISSN: 0018-1560
1573-174X
Abstract: The growth of international branch campuses (IBCs) is a notable feature of the higher education system in several emerging economies. However, the impact of IBCs on the host regions is rarely analyzed. This study focuses on the unique case of Greater Kuala Lumpur, the most populous conurbation in Malaysia. Greater Kuala Lumpur has several large local public and private universities, as well as sizable IBCs from Australia, China, and the UK, with commensurate scientific output. The scientific output (publications and citations) and co-authorship networks of 13 major universities in Greater Kuala Lumpur are analyzed between 2013 and 2022. The results show that IBCs receive more citations per publication, suggesting that their research output has greater scientific influence compared to local institutions. Their greater scientific influence correlates to IBCs' stronger position in co-authorship networks and their higher rates of (international) research collaboration. Over time, IBCs appear to deepen their connections to the Greater Kuala Lumpur research system, while the relative importance of the research relationships with the home campus declines. In terms of the international orientation of their research network, IBCs are similar to local public universities. For policymakers, this implies that attracting IBCs can expand the university system and increase a region's scientific influence. However, these benefits should be weighed against policy alternatives, such as reforming and increasing support for local universities.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1496699
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE4Of4BUOwuZypLBdrvSzZlAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNFBFsjGShrwvw0WqAIBEICBm2CuAiyg6GV7DuDMxP3DH1lIiSG6lPBauZjf3UijqirK5W8x2KNtTArbP7ZOsoHRlWNan6SUw-8YSLMnmqhtPIz_rFG88t0YiKuygTkDIBhs9vyRilPP1VtR-qwCQDH7cRely9_arbu6r_MjUFfDX2UG9QP20wLIFX-H2fZ-cfqRHJR07k6hhX78WZ8n_5vOCFOF9HQ0fL6QC7mL
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0189682619;hie01nov.25;2025Dec02.05:51;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0189682619-1">The influence of international branch campuses on regional university research networks: the case of Greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia </title> <p>The growth of international branch campuses (IBCs) is a notable feature of the higher education system in several emerging economies. However, the impact of IBCs on the host regions is rarely analyzed. This study focuses on the unique case of Greater Kuala Lumpur, the most populous conurbation in Malaysia. Greater Kuala Lumpur has several large local public and private universities, as well as sizable IBCs from Australia, China, and the UK, with commensurate scientific output. The scientific output (publications and citations) and co-authorship networks of 13 major universities in Greater Kuala Lumpur are analyzed between 2013 and 2022. The results show that IBCs receive more citations per publication, suggesting that their research output has greater scientific influence compared to local institutions. Their greater scientific influence correlates to IBCs' stronger position in co-authorship networks and their higher rates of (international) research collaboration. Over time, IBCs appear to deepen their connections to the Greater Kuala Lumpur research system, while the relative importance of the research relationships with the home campus declines. In terms of the international orientation of their research network, IBCs are similar to local public universities. For policymakers, this implies that attracting IBCs can expand the university system and increase a region's scientific influence. However, these benefits should be weighed against policy alternatives, such as reforming and increasing support for local universities.</p> <p>Keywords: International branch campus; Research network; Transnational education; Scientific influence; Malaysia</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-2">Introduction</hd> <p>International branch campuses (IBCs) are one of the most visible examples of transnational higher education, whereby foreign universities set up a full-fledged campus in another country to deliver their educational programs to local and international students (Lane, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref1">19</reflink>]). Malaysia, and the Greater Kuala Lumpur conurbation in particular, has been a pioneer in hosting IBCs, with the first IBC being established in 1998, and the region currently hosting three sizable IBCs from Australia, China, and the UK.</p> <p>IBCs in Malaysia are also unique in the sense that they have relatively large research output (Pohl & Lane, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref2">30</reflink>]) and are situated within a local higher education and research system that also includes internationally recognized local private and public universities. This unique higher education landscape makes Greater Kuala Lumpur a natural experiment to study the influence of IBCs on the host region's scientific research system.</p> <p>IBCs tend to exist within a duality, by which different aspects of the campus are locally oriented (e.g., academic staff), while others (e.g., curriculum) are oriented towards their home institution (Shams & Huisman, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref3">34</reflink>]). While it has been suggested that this is also reflected in their research network (Healey, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]; Pohl & Lane, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref5">30</reflink>]), it is not clear if this is unique to IBCs. University research is often international in its orientation, especially among elite research universities (Wit, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref6">7</reflink>]). While some have suggested that the local impact of IBCs is negligible (Altbach & Wit, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>]), this has not been extensively studied, especially with regard to research output and research networks.</p> <p>From a theoretical and policy perspective, it is important to understand the broader impact that IBCs can have on the host region's research and higher education system, and how IBCs are likely to interact and compete with incumbent institutions. If IBCs can act as a vehicle for scientific and higher education upgrading, then they may have an important role to play in enhancing and catalyzing improvements in the host region's scientific research system (Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref8">28</reflink>]). However, IBCs might also operate largely in isolation from the regional research system, or the opposite, be deeply embedded in it, and therefore lack a distinct international identity. For countries or regions that see IBCs as part of a strategy to invigorate their science and higher education sectors, these are important questions that have so far remained unanswered.</p> <p>To address this knowledge gap, the following research questions are explored in this paper:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How does the scientific influence of IBCs compare to that of local universities?</item> <p></p> <item> How are IBCs connected to the regional research system?</item> <p></p> <item> How do IBCs influence the international connectivity of the regional research system?</item> </ulist> <p>To address these questions, the paper begins with a discussion of the literature of IBCs and their host regions (International branch campuses and their host regions section) and an overview of the higher education landscape of Greater Kuala Lumpur (Higher education landscape of Greater Kuala Lumpur section). This is followed by a description of the scientometric data and methodology (Data and methodology section) and an analysis of the results (Results and analysis section), a discussion (Discussion section), and the conclusion (Conclusion, implications, and limitations section).</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-3">International branch campuses and their host regions</hd> <p>According to a widely used definition by Wilkins and Rumbley ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref9">43</reflink>], 174):</p> <p>An international branch campus is an entity that is owned, at least in part, by a specific foreign higher education institution, which has some degree of responsibility for the overall strategy and quality assurance of the branch campus. The branch campus operates under the name of the foreign institution and offers programming and/or credentials that bear the name of the foreign institution. The branch has basic infrastructure, such as a library, an open access computer lab, and dining facilities, and, overall, students at the branch have a similar student experience to students at the home campus.</p> <p>The number of IBCs has been growing rapidly since the beginning of the century, with 333 IBCs identified in 83 different countries (Garrett, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref10">9</reflink>]; Cross-Border Education Research Team, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref11">5</reflink>]). However, IBCs have not always been very stable, with changes in regulation, increased competition from domestic institutions, challenges in recruiting staff, delivering high-quality education, and controlling costs, as well as shifts in student demand, which has caused some IBCs to close down (Healey, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref12">16</reflink>]; Wilkins, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref13">41</reflink>]). Generally speaking, IBCs have remained similar to their home institution in terms of curriculum while becoming more localized in their hiring of academic staff (Shams & Huisman, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref14">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Host countries tend to view IBCs as a way to increase their higher education capacity, satisfy local demand for skilled labor, support knowledge creation and innovation, and serve as a form of "import substitution" by educating students locally rather than sending them to study abroad (Altbach & Wit, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref15">1</reflink>]; Wilkins & Juusola, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref16">42</reflink>]). Belarbi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref17">2</reflink>]) also highlight the role of IBCs in reversing the brain drain from the Middle East, as IBCs are able to attract global talent, including students and researchers, to the UAE, thus enhancing its base of human capital.</p> <p>Attracting branch campuses of leading foreign universities can also provide host countries with prestige, as exemplified by Abu Dhabi in the UAE, which hosts campuses of some "brand name" universities, including New York University and Sorbonne University (Wilkins, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref18">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>IBCs have also created an opportunity for Western universities to expand into new markets, following the neo-liberal economic doctrine of commodifying education (Bridi, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref19">4</reflink>]). In a case study of the UAE, Bridi ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>]) argues that the rise of Western IBCs is a consequence of a web of interrelated societal, political, economic, and academic factors which make the establishment of IBCs economically and politically viable. The motives of establishing IBCs by Chinese universities in Southeast Asia appear to be similarly complex. While they are supported by the central government, which aims to strengthen relations between China and Southeast Asia, the decision-making and funding of IBCs are largely decentralized and managed by individual Chinese universities (Ngeow, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref21">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>IBCs also change over time: the development of local linkages and independence from the home campus is seen as a natural development path for an IBC (Girdzijauskaitė et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>]). Hill and Thabet ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref23">14</reflink>]), who study the University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, note that during the early stages, research was not a priority, or was closely connected to the home campus in the UK. Later, the IBC developed a local research identity and increased collaborations with host-country institutions. The development of locally relevant research is seen as a contributing factor to an IBC's long-term success (Hickey & Davies, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref24">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite these engagements, Altbach and Wit ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref25">1</reflink>], 15) note that "[t]here is little evidence that international branch campuses have contributed much to the reform of the higher education systems in which they operate." This lack of contribution is especially problematic given that funding for IBCs typically comes from domestic sources, be they government or private investors, and not from home institutions. Despite these apparent drawbacks, a number of IBCs do make a significant quantitative contribution to the research output of their host countries, notably in Malaysia, Qatar, and the UAE (Pohl & Lane, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref26">30</reflink>]). However, the embeddedness or role of IBCs within the research system of their host region has not been explored.</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-4">Higher education landscape of Greater Kuala Lumpur</hd> <p>The conurbation of Greater Kuala Lumpur, which is centered on the federal capital of Malaysia, is considered an "alpha world city" (similar to Amsterdam, Jakarta, and Toronto), which makes it a "very important" world city that "link[s] major economic regions and states into the world economy" (Breul, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>]; Taylor & Derudder, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref28">38</reflink>]). Greater Kuala Lumpur is the largest conurbation in Malaysia and by 2025 is projected to account for 40% of economic activity and one-third of Malaysia's population, equivalent to approximately 10 million people (Yasin et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref29">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>The region has over 330,000 enrolled tertiary students at over 240 institutions of higher learning, making it the largest center of higher education in Malaysia (Ernst & Young, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref30">8</reflink>]; Healey, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref31">16</reflink>]). Malaysia has a multilingual population, and in the higher education sector, English is typically used as the main language of communication (Hashim & Leitner, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref32">11</reflink>]). The wide use of English has made Malaysia a sizable exporter of higher education services. Malaysia aims to attract 250,000 international students by 2025 (Munusamy & Hashim, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref33">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Amid this dynamic and internationalized higher education environment, Greater Kuala Lumpur has developed three distinct types of universities: public universities, private universities, and IBCs. It is important to note that from a regulatory perspective, IBCs are accredited like Malaysian private universities.</p> <p>Greater Kuala Lumpur's oldest university, the University of Malaya, is a public university which traces its roots to a medical college in Singapore founded by the British colonial government. However, the university only established a campus at Kuala Lumpur in 1959, and moved to its current purpose-built campus in 1962, when it was officially re-established. As Malaysia developed following independence in 1957, a number of new public universities were created (Zain et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref34">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>In 1970, the National University of Malaysia (<emph>Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia</emph>, UKM) was established in Kuala Lumpur. In 1971, the School of Agriculture at Serdang, which was set up by the colonial government in 1931, became the Agricultural University of Malaysia (<emph>Universiti Pertanian Malaysia</emph>, UPM). In 1997, the university was renamed Universiti Putra Malaysia (Zain et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref35">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>The International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) was founded in 1983 at Gombak, while 1999 saw the conversion of the Institut Teknologi MARA (ITM) at Shah Alam to Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM). IIUM serves Muslim students from Malaysia and the wider Islamic world, while UiTM serves indigenous Malaysian students (<emph>bumiputera</emph>) (M. N. N. Lee, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref36">21</reflink>]; Zain et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref37">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite its growth, the public higher education system could not keep pace with demand, especially from minority ethnic Chinese and Indian students, who had limited access to public universities due to a quota system. Starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s, private institutions began operating offshore higher education programs licensed by universities in the UK, Australia, and elsewhere (M. N. N. Lee, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>]; Sin, Leung, and Waters [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref39">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Private Higher Educational Institutions Act (1996) laid the regulatory basis for the establishment of private universities in Malaysia (M. N. N. Lee, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref40">21</reflink>]; Zain et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref41">46</reflink>]). In 1996, the national telecommunications company Telekom Malaysia converted its training college to Multimedia University, building a new campus at Cyberjaya. The following year, the national electric utility company, Tenaga Nasional, converted its training college at Kajang to Universiti Tenaga Nasional. A number of fully privately-owned universities, which had previously operated foreign offshore degree programs, attained "university college" status soon after: UCSI University at Kuala Lumpur in 2003, Sunway University at Subang Jaya in 2004, and Taylor's University at Subang Jaya in 2006 (Symaco & Wan, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref42">37</reflink>]). Supported by government policies, these private for-profit institutions rapidly developed into full-fledged private universities, providing both increased educational opportunities for Malaysians as well as international students (Morshidi, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref43">25</reflink>]; Symaco & Wan, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref44">37</reflink>]; Sin et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref45">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>The same policies which enabled the creation of private universities—a favorable regulatory framework and demand from both local and international students—also attracted a number of foreign universities to establish branch campuses (IBCs) in Greater Kuala Lumpur (Hou et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref46">15</reflink>]; Lane, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref47">19</reflink>]). The first of these branches was Australia's Monash University, which opened a campus at Subang Jaya in 1998. The UK's University of Nottingham opened a campus at Semenyih in 2000. In 2016, China's Xiamen University opened a campus at Sepang.</p> <p>An overview of the largest public, private, and IBCs (in terms of scientific output) in the Greater Kuala Lumpur conurbation[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref48">1</reflink>] is shown in Table 1. Universities are included in the table if in 2022 they had a minimum scientific output of 100 publications (on an author-weighted basis). There are a significant number of other private universities (and also another IBC) located in Greater Kuala Lumpur; however, these institutions have lower scientific output.</p> <p>Table 1 Major universities in Greater Kuala Lumpur based on research output</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Public universities (5)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Private universities (5)</p></th><th align="left"><p>IBCs (3)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>International Islamic University of Malaysia</p><p>National University of Malaysia</p><p>Universiti Putra Malaysia</p><p>Universiti Teknologi MARA</p><p>University of Malaya</p></td><td align="left"><p>Multimedia University</p><p>Sunway University</p><p>Taylor's University</p><p>UCSI University</p><p>Universiti Tenaga Nasional</p></td><td align="left"><p>Monash University</p><p>University of Nottingham</p><p>Xiamen University</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Within the South East Asia region, universities in Greater Kuala Lumpur have a relatively strong reputation. For example, among the 20 highest-ranked universities in the <emph>QS World University Rankings: South-Eastern Asia 2024</emph> (which excludes IBCs), six are found in Greater Kuala Lumpur, compared to two each in Singapore and Greater Bangkok (QS Quacquarelli Symonds, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref49">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-5">Data and methodology</hd> <p>This section provides an overview of the scientometric data used in this study (Scientometric data section), as well as a description of the models and model indicators (Model and model indicators section).</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-6">Scientometric data</hd> <p>This study uses scientific publications included in the Dimensions.ai database and includes book chapters, conference proceedings, and journal articles. Documents included in the study were published during the ten-year period from 2013 to 2022, and had at least one author who was affiliated with one of the 13 Greater Kuala Lumpur universities listed in Table 1. The data was retrieved in October 2023. Note that universities are only included in the sample if they have at least 100 publications during a particular year.</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-7">Model and model indicators</hd> <p>In order to address the research questions raised in this paper, the following indicators are incorporated into the model (see Table 2). Indicators are calculated annually at the university level.</p> <p>Table 2 Scientific output and research co-authorship network indicators with statistical summaries. University as the unit of analysis</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Indicator</p></th><th align="left"><p>Description</p></th><th align="left"><p>Min</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean</p></th><th align="left"><p>Max</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>CIT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Total citations received, weighted by author, and corrected by field and year</p></td><td align="left"><p>664</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,595</p></td><td align="left"><p>71,695</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>PUB</p></td><td align="left"><p>Total publications, weighted by author</p></td><td align="left"><p>106.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>817.7</p></td><td align="left"><p>2502.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>CIT<sub>R</sub></p></td><td align="left"><p>Average citation ratio, CIT<sub>R</sub> = CIT/PUB</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>13.30</p></td><td align="left"><p>37.45</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>DEG<sub>S</sub></p></td><td align="left"><p>Degree centrality (network density)</p></td><td align="left"><p>76.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>553.5</p></td><td align="left"><p>2136.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>BET<sub>S</sub></p></td><td align="left"><p>Betweenness centrality (bridging role)</p></td><td align="left"><p>27,317</p></td><td align="left"><p>500,001</p></td><td align="left"><p>2,621,976</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>EIG<sub>S</sub></p></td><td align="left"><p>Eigenvector centrality (connectivity)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>INT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Total international co-authored publications with institutions outside Malaysia</p></td><td align="left"><p>43.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>580.5</p></td><td align="left"><p>2,521.0</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The total number of citations (CIT) and number of publications (PUB) provide an indication of the influence and volume of a university's scientific output, with the average citation ratio (CIT<subs>R</subs>) providing a measure of a university's scientific influence. To account for different citation rates due to the field of study and year of publication, the field citation ratio (FCR) is used to calculate the number of citations instead of the raw citation number. Note that the FCR is not available for 2022.</p> <p>The universities' co-authorship network position can be described by various network indicators. Degree centrality describes the density of network linkages (DEG<subs>S</subs>). Betweenness centrality describes the bridging role that universities play within a network (BET<subs>S</subs>). Eigenvector centrality describes the connectedness of universities to other well-connected universities (EIG<subs>S</subs>). Throughout the study, the simple degree centrality measures are used, which measure the number of unique links and not the total number of links.</p> <p>Within the context of this study, which considers the combined co-authorship networks of 13 universities, the betweenness centrality provides an indicator of the extent to which a university brings in unique connections to the network, by being the only university that is connected to a particular university outside Greater Kuala Lumpur. A university with a high eigenvector centrality would be one with a very strongly connected position within the Greater Kuala Lumpur-centered co-authorship network. Network indicators were calculated in R using <emph>igraph</emph> (Csardi & Nepusz, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref50">6</reflink>]) and visualized using <emph>NodeXL</emph> (Smith et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref51">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, one additional indicator is included that is aimed at measuring the main strength often attributed to IBCs, namely in terms of their ability to connect to international research partners (Pohl & Lane, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref52">30</reflink>]). The international co-authored publications (INT) indicator specifically measures universities' connections to universities outside of Malaysia. A correlation matrix of the model variables is presented in Table 8 in the Appendix.</p> <p>In addition to the indicators presented in Table 2, two dummy indicators are incorporated in the model estimations: the type of university (TYPE, whether public, private, or IBC), and the publication year (YEAR, from 2013 to 2022). The publication year serves as a control variable to account for the growth of research networks over time. In the model estimations public universities and the year 2013 act as the base variables against which the control variables are set.</p> <p>The model takes into account the size of universities by relating total values to each other. For example, the total number of publications is linked to the total number of citations or the network position.</p> <p>A hierarchical stepwise modeling approach is used with ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation, with each model exploring the influence of university type (TYPE) and then scientifc influence (CIT<subs>R</subs>) on different dependent variables. Multicollinearity, heteroscedasticity, and normality of residuals checks are included in the model estimation results and do not suggest any conditions that would invalidate the observed correlations, especially after visual inspections of the data.</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-8">Results and analysis</hd> <p>The results and analysis are presented in three parts. After a brief overview of research output, the influence of institution type on scientific influence is analyzed (Research output and influence section). This is followed by an analysis of the research network of the 13 Greater Kuala Lumpur universities (Research networks section). Finally, the correlation between the frequency of international research collaborations and institution type is analyzed (International research collaboration section).</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-9">Research output and influence</hd> <p>The research output of the 13 major universities in Greater Kuala Lumpur has seen significant but unequal growth from 2013 to 2022. Overall, research output grew from 8071 to 11,213 publications per year (+ 39%). Public universities accounted for the largest increase in absolute terms, rising from 7106 to 8519, but for the smallest increase in relative terms (+ 20%). Private universities rose from 620 to 1761 (+ 184%) and IBCs from 346 to 1033 (+ 199%). The faster growth of private universities and IBCs has led to a decline in the public university share of scientific output from 88 to 75% in 2022. See also Fig. 1.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Change in research output among 13 major universities in Greater Kuala Lumpur</p> <p>Aside from differences in growth rate, the model estimations presented in Table 3 also suggest that the type of institution (public, private, IBC) has a statistically significant effect on scientific influence (as measured by citations). In the Base Model, the number of total citations that a university receives is largely accounted for by the number of publications (adjusted <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.82). However, when the type of institutions is added in the University Type model, it appears that IBCs publish more influential research, followed by private universities. The addition of university type has a small but noticeable influence on the explanatory power of the model, which rises to adjusted <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.85, a 3% increase.</p> <p>Table 3 Correlation between institution type and scientific influence, <emph>β</emph> coefficient with robust standard errors. The asterisks (***, **, and *) signify 99.9%, 99%, and 95% confidence levels, respectively</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Model</p></th><th align="left"><p>Base Model</p></th><th align="left"><p>University Type</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Dependent variable</p></td><td align="left"><p>log<sub>10</sub>CIT</p></td><td align="left"><p>log<sub>10</sub>CIT</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.84*** (0.13)</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.23 (0.31)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Independent variables</bold></p><p> Publications (log<sub>10</sub>PUB)</p><p> IBCs (TYPE<sub>IBC</sub>)</p><p> Private (TYPE<sub>PRIVATE</sub>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.87*** (0.04)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.21*** (0.10)</p><p>0.37*** (0.09)</p><p>0.26*** (0.09)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Controls</bold></p><p> YEAR<sub>2014</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2015</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2016</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2017</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2018</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2019</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2020</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2021</sub></p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.02 (0.08)</p><p>0.01 (0.08)</p><p>0.03 (0.08)</p><p>0.01 (0.08)</p><p>0.00 (0.08)</p><p>0.02 (0.07)</p><p>0.06 (0.07)</p><p>0.03 (0.07)</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.03 (0.07)</p><p>0.01 (0.07)</p><p>0.03 (0.07)</p><p>0.02 (0.07)</p><p>−0.01 (0.07)</p><p>−0.01 (0.07)</p><p>−0.03 (0.07)</p><p>−0.03 (0.07)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Diagnostics</bold></p><p><italic> n</italic></p><p> Adjusted <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></p><p> Shapiro–Wilk <italic>p</italic></p><p> Breusch-Pagan <italic>p</italic></p><p> VIF</p></td><td align="left"><p>101</p><p>0.82</p><p>0.02</p><p>0.01</p><p>2.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>101</p><p>0.85</p><p>0.01</p><p>0.03</p><p>3.54</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The results for IBCs are expected, as the three IBCs in Greater Kuala Lumpur were established by leading foreign universities. However, the scientific influence of private universities is unexpected, because private universities in Malaysia tend to have a stronger focus on teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-10">Research networks</hd> <p>Research networks (based on the co-authorship of scientific publications) are analyzed in two parts. A descriptive analysis of the network is followed by a quantitative analysis of how institution type influences various networks. Note that the networks are based on the collaboration activities of the 13 Greater Kuala Lumpur institutions.</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-11">Descriptive analysis</hd> <p>The descriptive analysis of research networks considers the state of the networks in 2013, 2018, and 2022. Network linkages are included in the network graphs (Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 4) based on a minimum threshold of 30 co-publications. Previous research has suggested that cut-off thresholds for network analysis are arbitrary and should be based on an iterative process that provides an accurate representation and clarity regarding the results (Lee & Park, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref53">20</reflink>]; Park & Barnett, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref54">29</reflink>]). While choosing a fixed cut-off provides many practical examples, it could obscure the diversity of research networks of smaller universities. As the number of publications has increased rapidly in Greater Kuala Lumpur during the study period, partial network graphs that highlight IBCs are shown for 2018 and 2022. Full network graphs are shown in the appendix (Figs. 5 and 6).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Co-authorship network in 2013. Line size indicates frequency of research collaboration</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Partial co-authorship network in 2018. Line size indicates frequency of research collaboration</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Partial co-authorship network in 2022. Line size indicates frequency of research collaboration</p> <p>The 2013 network (Fig. 2) shows both public universities in Greater Kuala Lumpur and public universities located in <emph>other parts</emph> of Malaysia, such as University of Technology Malaysia ("U T MY") and Universiti Sains Malaysia ("U Sains MY"), at the center of the network. This suggests that, although these two public research universities are geographically distant, they form an integral part of the Greater Kuala Lumpur research network.</p> <p>In 2013, two IBCs are shown in the network graph, Monash University ("Monash U MY") and the University of Nottingham ("U Nottingham MY Campus"). The Nottingham IBC is connected to its main campus (UK) and to Universiti Putra Malaysia. In contrast, the Monash IBC is not connected to its main campus (Australia), but it is connected to Universiti Sains Malaysia. Since the Monash IBC was older (established in 1998) compared to the Nottingham IBC (established in 2000), the research collaboration network of the Monash IBC may have already become more Malaysian-oriented by 2013.</p> <p>Among private universities, two institutions are visible in the network: Universiti Tenaga Nasional ("U Tenaga Nasional", connected to the University of Malaya and Universiti Putra Malaysia) and Multimedia University ("Multimedia U", connected to the University of Malaya). These results suggest that public universities, and not IBCs or private universities, form the core of the Greater Kuala Lumpur research network in 2013.</p> <p>In 2018, public universities continue to be at the center of the network, including the University of Technology Malaysia and Universiti Sains Malaysia, which are located about 300 km away from Kuala Lumpur (Fig. 3). The Monash, Nottingham, and Xiamen IBCs are visible, as are three new private universities: Sunway, Taylor's, and UCSI (see also Fig. 5 in the Appendix). The IBCs and new private universities are connected to at least one of the large Greater Kuala Lumpur public universities: University of Malaya, Universiti Putra Malaysia, or the National University of Malaysia. The Nottingham and Monash IBCs are connected to their respective home campuses, but the new Xiamen IBC is not. Sunway University is also connected to Lancaster University (UK), with whom it has a dual-degree partnership.</p> <p>The 2022 network (Fig. 4) shows the expansion of linkages between IBCs and local universities. All three IBCs have links with their main campus, while Monash and Nottingham have links with 7 and 6 other university campuses in Malaysia. The Xiamen IBC is connected to the Nottingham IBC and the National University of Malaysia.</p> <p>Private universities have also expanded their research collaboration networks, albeit at different paces. Sunway University is connected to 15 universities (8 in Malaysia), UCSI University to 8 (all in Malaysia), Universiti Tenaga Nasional to 5 (4 in Malaysia), and Multimedia and Taylor's University to just 4 and 3 universities, respectively (all in Malaysia). Meanwhile, public universities still dominate the Greater Kuala Lumpur network, including large public universities located outside of Kuala Lumpur, both in terms of connecting with Malaysian and international institutions (see also Fig. 6 in the Appendix). This suggests that the core of the research network has remained unchanged during the past decade.</p> <p>The rapid expansion of research output in Greater Kuala Lumpur has been accompanied by IBCs strengthening their research ties with local universities while retaining ties to their home campus. While the growth of IBCs is notable, the research networks of private universities have also expanded. While private universities tend to be more domestically oriented in the collaborations, Sunway University is a notable exception. The private institution also has extensive research collaborations with universities in the Middle East.</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-12">Quantitative analysis</hd> <p>To provide deeper insights into the entire research network, and not only its core links, the centralities of universities within the research network are analyzed using a regression analysis. The model estimations are done in pairs, with the first estimation including only the institution type, and the second the citation ratio (citations per publication, adjusted for year and field) in order to confirm the robustness of the result.</p> <p>Earlier studies have shown a correlation between citation rates and (international) research collaboration at the level of individual papers (Puuska et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref55">32</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref56">40</reflink>]) and institutions (Khor & Yu, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref57">17</reflink>]). These studies imply a degree of mutual causality between scientific influence and collaboration. For example, international co-authorship is seen to increase international citations by raising a research paper's visibility in multiple countries. At the same time, elite or highly productive researchers have a higher tendency to participate in international research collaborations (Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref58">24</reflink>]; Kwiek, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref59">18</reflink>]), something which is partly attributed to the prestige of their institutions (Torres-Olave et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref60">39</reflink>]; Yang et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref61">44</reflink>]). By also including scientific influence as a control variable in the model estimations, the effect of university type can be more clearly identified.</p> <p>Three types of network centralities are considered in this research: degree centrality, betweenness centrality, and eigenvector centrality.</p> <p>Based on the model estimations shown in Table 4, IBCs appear to have a greater degree centrality than public universities. However, when scientific influence (citation ratio) is included as a control in the model, the role of IBCs is not statistically significant. Furthermore, although the first model estimation suggests that private universities have a comparable degree centrality to public universities, adding scientific influence as a control indicates that private universities have a lower degree centrality, which suggests that they have research collaborations with a smaller number of other universities relative to their size and scientific influence.</p> <p>Table 4 Influence of institution type on co-authorship network degree centrality (network density), <emph>β</emph> coefficient with robust standard errors. The asterisks (***, **, and *) signify 99.9%, 99%, and 95% confidence levels, respectively</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Model</p></th><th align="left"><p>Degree centrality</p></th><th align="left"><p>Degree centrality</p><p>With citation ratio</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Dependent variable</p></td><td align="left"><p>log<sub>10</sub>DEG<sub>S</sub></p></td><td align="left"><p>log<sub>10</sub>DEG<sub>S</sub></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.05 (0.29)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.32* (0.15)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Independent variables</bold></p><p> Publications (log<sub>10</sub>PUB)</p><p> Citation Ratio (CIT<sub>R</sub>)</p><p> IBCs (TYPE<sub>IBC</sub>)</p><p> Private (TYPE<sub>PRIVATE</sub>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.84*** (0.09)</p><p>0.31*** (0.08)</p><p>0.05 (0.08)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.65*** (0.05)</p><p>0.12*** (0.01)</p><p>−0.00 (0.05)</p><p> − 0.16*** (0.00)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Controls</bold></p><p> YEAR<sub>2014</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2015</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2016</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2017</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2018</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2019</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2020</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2021</sub></p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.03 (0.07)</p><p>0.03 (0.06)</p><p>0.09 (0.06)</p><p>0.15** (0.06)</p><p>0.17*** (0.06)</p><p>0.25*** (0.06)</p><p>0.28*** (0.06)</p><p>0.33*** (0.06)</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.01 (0.04)</p><p>0.01 (0.03)</p><p>0.06 (0.03)</p><p>0.13*** (0.03)</p><p>0.18*** (0.03)</p><p>0.23*** (0.03)</p><p>0.26*** (0.03)</p><p>0.34*** (0.03)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Diagnostics</bold></p><p><italic> n</italic></p><p> Adjusted <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></p><p> Shapiro–Wilk <italic>p</italic></p><p> Breusch-Pagan <italic>p</italic></p><p> VIF</p></td><td align="left"><p>101</p><p>0.84</p><p>0.50</p><p>0.01</p><p>3.54</p></td><td align="left"><p>101</p><p>0.95</p><p>0.72</p><p>0.00</p><p>3.19</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>An analysis of betweenness centrality (Table 5), which is an indication of the "bridging" role an institution plays in forming unique links with universities that other universities have <emph>not</emph> formed collaborations with, shows that the betweenness centrality of IBCs is also higher than that of local universities. However, when scientific influence (citation ratio) is included in the model, the IBC factor is no longer statistically significant. This suggests that Pohl and Lane ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref62">30</reflink>]) are correct in their observation that IBCs play an important role in connecting their host region to foreign universities. However, this role is also fulfilled by public universities if their relative scientific influence is taken into account. As was the case with degree centralities, private universities appear to have a lower network rank relative to their size and scientific influence.</p> <p>Table 5 Influence of institution type on co-authorship network betweenness centrality (bridging), <emph>β</emph> coefficient with robust standard errors. The asterisks (***, **, and *) signify 99.9%, 99%, and 95% confidence levels, respectively</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Model</p></th><th align="left"><p>Betweenness centrality</p></th><th align="left"><p>Betweenness Cent</p><p>With citation ratio</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Dependent variable</p></td><td align="left"><p>log<sub>10</sub>BET<sub>S</sub></p></td><td align="left"><p>log<sub>10</sub>BET<sub>S</sub></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.26*** (0.41)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.61*** (0.26)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Independent variables</bold></p><p> Publications (log<sub>10</sub>PUB)</p><p> Citation Ratio (CIT<sub>R</sub>)</p><p> IBCs (TYPE<sub>IBC</sub>)</p><p> Private (TYPE<sub>PRIVATE</sub>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.05*** (0.13)</p><p>0.39*** (0.11)</p><p> − 0.00 (0.11)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.80*** (0.08)</p><p>0.15*** (0.01)</p><p> − 0.03 (0.08)</p><p> − 0.29*** (0.07)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Controls</bold></p><p> YEAR<sub>2014</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2015</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2016</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2017</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2018</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2019</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2020</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2021</sub></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03 (0.10)</p><p>0.11 (0.09)</p><p>0.16* (0.09)</p><p>0.25*** (0.09)</p><p>0.27*** (0.09)</p><p>0.37*** (0.09)</p><p>0.40*** (0.09)</p><p>0.39*** (0.09)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.06 (0.06)</p><p>0.09 (0.06)</p><p>0.13** (0.06)</p><p>0.22*** (0.06)</p><p>0.27*** (0.06)</p><p>0.34*** (0.06)</p><p>0.36*** (0.05)</p><p>0.42*** (0.06)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Diagnostics</bold></p><p><italic> n</italic></p><p> Adjusted <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></p><p> Shapiro–Wilk <italic>p</italic></p><p> Breusch-Pagan <italic>p</italic></p><p> VIF</p></td><td align="left"><p>101</p><p>0.81</p><p>0.67</p><p>0.06</p><p>3.54</p></td><td align="left"><p>101</p><p>0.93</p><p>0.06</p><p>0.05</p><p>3.19</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Finally, when analyzing the eigenvector centrality of higher education institutions (Table 6), IBCs do not appear to have a differentiated position compared to other types of universities in the Greater Kuala Lumpur region.</p> <p>Table 6 Influence of institution type on co-authorship network eigenvector centrality (connectivity), <emph>β</emph> coefficient with robust standard errors. The asterisks (***, **, and *) signify 99.9%, 99%, and 95% confidence levels, respectively</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Model</p></th><th align="left"><p>Eigenvector centrality</p></th><th align="left"><p>Eigenvector Cent</p><p>With citation ratio</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Dependent variable</p></td><td align="left"><p>log<sub>10</sub>EIG<sub>S</sub></p></td><td align="left"><p>log<sub>10</sub>EIG<sub>S</sub></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 2.69*** (0.20)</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 2.60*** (0.19)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Independent variables</bold></p><p> Publications (log<sub>10</sub>PUB)</p><p> Citation Ratio (CIT<sub>R</sub>)</p><p> IBCs (TYPE<sub>IBC</sub>)</p><p> Private (TYPE<sub>PRIVATE</sub>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.77*** (0.07)</p><p>0.03 (0.06)</p><p> − 0.00 (0.06)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.71*** (0.06)</p><p>0.04*** (0.00)</p><p> − 0.08 (0.06)</p><p> − 0.07 (0.06)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Controls</bold></p><p> YEAR<sub>2014</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2015</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2016</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2017</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2018</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2019</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2020</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2021</sub></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.08* (0.05)</p><p>0.05 (0.03)</p><p>0.09* (0.03)</p><p>0.14*** (0.03)</p><p>0.17*** (0.03)</p><p>0.15*** (0.04)</p><p>0.10** (0.04)</p><p>0.06 (0.04)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.09** (0.04)</p><p>0.04 (0.04)</p><p>0.08* (0.04)</p><p>0.13*** (0.04)</p><p>0.17*** (0.04)</p><p>0.15*** (0.04)</p><p>0.10** (0.04)</p><p>0.06 (0.14)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Diagnostics</bold></p><p><italic>n</italic></p><p> Adjusted <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></p><p> Shapiro–Wilk <italic>p</italic></p><p> Breusch-Pagan <italic>p</italic></p><p> VIF</p></td><td align="left"><p>101</p><p>0.91</p><p>0.00</p><p>0.04</p><p>3.54</p></td><td align="left"><p>101</p><p>0.92</p><p>0.00</p><p>0.01</p><p>3.19</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>One further observation that can be made based on the control variables in the model estimations (see YEAR in Tables 4 and 5) is that they are increasingly statistically significant and that their value rises over time. This increase in network centrality is in addition to the rise in the number of publications (PUB). This trend suggests that the diversity of research collaborations in the Greater Kuala Lumpur research network is increasing over time, an observation that is also supported by the network graphs presented earlier in this section.</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-13">International research collaboration</hd> <p>International research collaborations in particular are viewed as an important benefit of IBCs, even though international collaborations are common among elite research universities in general. Based on the model estimations (Table 7), it appears that the greater scientific influence of IBCs is related to their international research collaborations. As a rule, internationally co-authored publications tend to be more highly cited than other papers (Khor & Yu, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref63">17</reflink>]; Puuska et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref64">32</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref65">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 7 Influence of institution type on international co-authorship, <emph>β</emph> coefficient with robust standard errors. The asterisks (***, **, and *) signify 99.9%, 99%, and 95% confidence levels, respectively</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Model</p></th><th align="left"><p>International research collab</p></th><th align="left"><p>International R.C</p><p>With citation ratio</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Dependent variable</p></td><td align="left"><p>log<sub>10</sub>INT</p></td><td align="left"><p>log<sub>10</sub>INT</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.63* (0.34)</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.32 (0.19)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Independent variables</bold></p><p> Publications (log<sub>10</sub>PUB)</p><p> Citation Ratio (CIT<sub>R</sub>)</p><p> IBCs (TYPE<sub>IBC</sub>)</p><p> Private (TYPE<sub>PRIVATE</sub>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.06*** (0.11)</p><p>0.37*** (0.09)</p><p>0.08 (0.09)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.84*** (0.06)</p><p>0.14*** (0.01)</p><p>0.01 (0.06)</p><p> − 0.17*** (0.05)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Controls</bold></p><p> YEAR<sub>2014</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2015</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2016</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2017</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2018</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2019</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2020</sub></p><p> YEAR<sub>2021</sub></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.02 (0.08)</p><p>0.06 (0.08)</p><p>0.12 (0.08)</p><p>0.18** (0.08)</p><p>0.19** (0.08)</p><p>0.26*** (0.07)</p><p>0.29*** (0.07)</p><p>0.35*** (0.07)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.04 (0.04)</p><p>0.04 (0.04)</p><p>0.09** (0.04)</p><p>0.15*** (0.04)</p><p>0.19*** (0.04)</p><p>0.23*** (0.04)</p><p>0.27*** (0.04)</p><p>0.37*** (0.04)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Diagnostics</bold></p><p><italic> n</italic></p><p> Adjusted <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></p><p> Shapiro–Wilk <italic>p</italic></p><p> Breusch-Pagan <italic>p</italic></p><p> VIF</p></td><td align="left"><p>101</p><p>0.84</p><p>0.03</p><p>0.02</p><p>3.54</p></td><td align="left"><p>101</p><p>0.95</p><p>0.81</p><p>0.00</p><p>3.19</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Once again, relative to the quantity and influence of their scientific output, private universities appear to have fewer international collaborations compared to IBCs and public universities. The control variables (YEAR) suggest that internationalization is increasing at a faster rate relative to the rise in scientific output.</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-14">Discussion</hd> <p>The central research question of this paper concerns the role of IBCs within the diverse and rapidly growing research network of 13 major universities located in Greater Kuala Lumpur. The contribution of IBCs to the region's research network is not insignificant, in the sense that they produce research with greater scientific influence, and that their research output is growing in relative and absolute terms. It appears that IBCs are able to replicate some of the academic success of their home institutions within the context of Greater Kuala Lumpur. However, once their scientific influence (proxied through higher citation rates) is accounted for, the IBCs' network rank is comparable to that of Malaysian public universities.</p> <p>While IBCs continue to maintain significant research linkages with their home campus, they have also expanded ties to universities in Malaysia. Over time, the research networks of IBCs have become more "Malaysianized", a trend which aligns with earlier research findings (Healey, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref66">12</reflink>]; Hill & Thabet, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref67">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Malaysianization of IBCs is likely driven by the localization of IBC staff, as noted by Shams and Huisman ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref68">34</reflink>]). A casual look at faculty members on the websites of the three IBCs suggests that the majority of faculty are Malaysians, and that there is considerable faculty mobility between Malaysian universities. A number of foreign faculty, for example from Bangladesh, Iran, or Nigeria, obtained their doctorates from Malaysian universities. Hence, the faculty members at IBCs could be relatively similar in their research outlook and approach to the faculty members of other Malaysian universities, although their scientific output tends to be more influential.</p> <p>IBCs also compete for research funding on a similar basis as Malaysian private universities, although they are sometimes included in research grants from the home university (Hill & Thabet, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref69">14</reflink>]). However, such an arrangement may not be unique to IBCs: other Malaysian universities with strong international relations may also be included as part of an international grant.</p> <p>The findings suggest that IBCs have successfully managed the "tradeoff" between international research excellence and local relevance (Healey, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref70">12</reflink>]). IBCs have greater scientific influence and also close connections with Malaysian institutions, showing their local relevance. Interestingly, Malaysian private universities also have above-average scientific influence (citations), although their research network position tends to be weaker than both public universities and IBCs.</p> <p>The main contribution of IBCs in enhancing the Greater Kuala Lumpur research network may therefore be made during their initial creation, and the transfer of an academic system and culture that is able to produce influential research output. Some of this "magic formula" is likely due to an IBCs' brand name, which enables it to charge relatively high tuition fees and attract better academic staff. Given faculty mobility between different types of universities, best practices from IBCs can likely be transferred to other types of universities.</p> <p>Looking beyond IBCs, it is clear that public universities, particularly the University of Malaya, serve as anchors of the Greater Kuala Lumpur research network. In contrast, private universities have a lower network degree centrality, betweenness centrality, and global research collaborations in relation to their scientific influence. This could be attributed to their funding model, which relies mainly on tuition fees, their academic recruitment strategy (faculty often move from public universities to private universities), and the fact that they mainly enroll students into undergraduate programs and professional master degrees—rather than having graduate students who produce significant amounts of research. These factors could mean that it is more cost-effective to conduct research with a smaller number of academic partners, or to leverage off other key local partners with wider networks, such as public universities and IBCs.</p> <p>A notable exception to this general characterization of private universities is Sunway University, which in some respects appears to operate like a "quasi-IBC." Sunway maintains a relatively large international network, including with its dual-degree partner, Lancaster University. Aside from its international network, Sunway University has placed foreigners in key academic positions, notably hiring the former Vice Chancellor of a large Dutch university as a special advisor and then university president in 2019.</p> <p>One final comment can be made about the Greater Kuala Lumpur co-authorship network, which is that it includes several institutions from outside the region. Besides major public universities, such as the University of Technology Malaysia and Universiti Sains Malaysia, two private universities located near Ipoh, a city approximately 200 km from Kuala Lumpur, are also consistently part of the core research network. These universities are Universiti Tuanku Abdul Rahman and Universiti Teknologi Petronas, the latter owned by the state oil and gas company. The presence of these institutions suggests that Greater Kuala Lumpur is less a research network in itself, but more the core part of the Malaysian national research network.</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-15">Conclusion, implications and limitations</hd> <p>The research findings show that, within a large and well-developed research system like Greater Kuala Lumpur, the impact of IBCs is relatively small, but not insignificant. Although IBCs do not appear to have any special role in facilitating international research collaborations, IBCs have greater scientific influence and are well-embedded within the regional research network. While IBCs appear to become more localized over time, as ties with Malaysian universities expand, they are able to maintain their scientific influence (so-called "international research excellence").</p> <p>Viewed from the perspective of the host region's research system, the value added of IBCs appears to come primarily from bringing in research activity that is internationally influential and the related institutional framework and international network to support this. The scientific influence of the IBCs correlates to their strong network position, both within the Greater Kuala Lumpur region, and in forming international research collaborations. However, it should be noted that in the case of Greater Kuala Lumpur, <emph>elite</emph> foreign institutions, which conduct significant research, have been brought in. IBCs with a lower research intensity may have less influence on the host research system, and in the case of this study, do not meet the criteria for inclusion. It is possible that the relative impact of research-intensive IBCs is even larger in countries or regions with a less developed local research system.</p> <p>A discussion of the value-added of IBCs also raises questions about their cost. In the case of Malaysia, IBCs are typically co-funded by local firms involved in property development, with the home institution providing curriculum, core staffing, management expertise, and of course its brand and reputation (R. Lee, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref71">22</reflink>]). In such a case, there is minimal public funding; essentially the IBC operates like a local private university with a kind of franchise or management model, so the question of mobilizing public funds does not arise. The IBC is simply another provider in a relatively large and liberal higher education market.</p> <p>The question is quite different in the case of Abu Dhabi, which provides public funding to cover 99% of revenue related to New York University's Abu Dhabi campus (Porcelli & Maharishi, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref72">31</reflink>]). In such a situation, the question of diverting funds away from alternatives becomes much more salient, and a broader assessment of the costs and benefits of hosting and funding IBCs should be undertaken.</p> <p>For the home campus, the case of Greater Kuala Lumpur shows that IBCs evolve from being a branch that is closely tied to the home university, to being an independently managed subsidiary of the home university. The mature IBC is more closely connected to the host regional research system, and from a research perspective, operates as an independent node within the global research system.</p> <p>The strong research performance of private universities and IBCs in Greater Kuala Lumpur when compared to public universities is also notable, given that private universities receive far less research funding (V.-H. Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref73">23</reflink>]). Although scientific influence in terms of citations per publication does not necessarily reflect the social impact of research, the results suggest that public universities may be able to adopt certain best practices from private universities. As shown, public universities play a central role in the research network; hence, their research success will be the key factor driving Greater Kuala Lumpur's research system forward.</p> <p>The present study only considers the case of Greater Kuala Lumpur, a major global city with a well-developed higher education system, a relatively open academic culture, and home to both well-developed local public and private universities. It may therefore be useful to compare Kuala Lumpur or Malaysia to other countries with IBCs, such as China, Qatar, Kazakhstan, Singapore, South Korea, and the UAE. It could also be worthwhile to understand the research and research funding approaches of private universities in Malaysia better, as they also appear to be performing influential scientific research and may be more innovative and less encumbered by administrative procedures than public sector universities.</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-16">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The current research would not have been possible without Dimnesions.ai's no-cost access program. This work was supported by the 2024 Yeungnam University Research Grant.</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-17">Funding</hd> <p>This work was supported by the 2024 Yeungnam University Research Grant.</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-18">Data availability</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the first author.</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-19">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189682619-20">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no competing interests.</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-21">Appendix</hd> <p>Table 8 Correlation matrix. The asterisks (***, **, and *) signify 99.9%, 99%, and 95% confidence levels, respectively</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>CIT</p></th><th align="left"><p>PUB</p></th><th align="left"><p>CIT<sub>R</sub></p></th><th align="left"><p>DEG<sub>S</sub></p></th><th align="left"><p>BET<sub>S</sub></p></th><th align="left"><p>EIG<sub>S</sub></p></th><th align="left"><p>INT</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>CIT</p></td><td align="left"><p>−</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.87***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.21*</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.88***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.87***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.87***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.91***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>PUB</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.87***</p></td><td align="left"><p>−</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.05</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.79***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.78***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.97***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.82***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>CIT<sub>R</sub></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.21*</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.05</p></td><td align="left"><p>−</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.11</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.04</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.01</p></td><td align="left"><p> −0.03</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>DEG<sub>S</sub></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.88***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.79***</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>−</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.99***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.81***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.99***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>BET<sub>S</sub></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.87***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.78***</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.99***</p></td><td align="left"><p>−</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.8***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.99***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>EIG<sub>S</sub></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.87***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.97***</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.81***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.8***</p></td><td align="left"><p>−</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.84***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>INT</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.91***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.82***</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.99***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.99***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.84***</p></td><td align="left"><p>−</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph: Fig. 5 Greater Kuala Lumpur co-authorship network in 2018. Line size indicates frequency of research collaboration</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 6 Greater Kuala Lumpur co-authorship network in 2022. Line size indicates frequency of research collaboration</p> <hd id="AN0189682619-22">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0189682619-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref7" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Altbach P, de Wit H. Rethinking the relevance of international branch campuses. International Higher Education. 2020; 101: 14-16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref17" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Belarbi, A. K, El Refae, G. A, & Aissani, R. A. (2023). Internationalization of education and the brain drain paradox: Case of the Mena Region. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice,23(3). https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v23i3.5844.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref27" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Breul M. Cities in 'multiple globalizations': Insights from the upstream oil and gas world city network. Regional Studies, Regional Science. 2019; 6; 1: 25-31. 10.1080/21681376.2018.1564628</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref19" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bridi, R. (2020). Transnational higher education and international branch campuses in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries: The case of the United Arab Emirates. In 6th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd'20). Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/HEAd20.2020.11063</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref11" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cross-Border Education Research Team. (2023). C-BERT international campus listing. [Data Originally Collected by Kevin Kinser and Jason E. Lane]. C-BERT. March 2023. https://<ulink href="http://www.cbert.org/intl-campus">www.cbert.org/intl-campus</ulink>. Accessed 15 Feb 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref50" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Csardi G, Nepusz T. The Igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems. 2006; 1695; 5: 1-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref6" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> De Wit, H (2019). Internationalization in higher education, a critical review. SFU Educational Review,12 (3), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.21810/sfuer.v12i3.1036.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref30" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Ernst, & Young. (2020). KL calling: Dynamic, digital, diverse. Investment Guide. Kuala Lumpur: Ernst & Young. https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en%5fmy/topics/consulting/ey-kl-calling-2020.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref10" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Garrett R. International branch campuses: Success factors. International Higher Education,. 2018; 93; March: 14-16. 10.6017/ihe.0.93.10417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Girdzijauskaitė E, Radzevičienė A, Jakubavičius A. International branch campus: Sequential market commitment. Journal of System and Management Sciences. 2018; 8; 4: 57-81</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hashim A, Leitner G. English as a Lingua Franca in higher education in Malaysia. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2014; 1; 1: 16-27</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Healey NM. The optimal global integration–local responsiveness tradeoff for an international branch campus. Research in Higher Education. 2018; 59; 5: 623-649. 10.1007/s11162-017-9480-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hickey R, Davies D. The common factors underlying successful international branch campuses: Towards a conceptual decision-making framework. Globalisation, Societies and Education. 2024; 22; 2: 364-378. 10.1080/14767724.2022.2037072</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill C, Thabet RA. Managing international branch campuses: Lessons learnt from eight years on a branch campus in Malaysia. International Journal of Educational Management. 2018; 32; 2: 310-322. 10.1108/IJEM-04-2017-0079</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hou A-C, Hill C, Chen KHJ, Tsai S. A comparative study of international branch campuses in Malaysia, Singapore, China, and South Korea: Regulation, governance, and quality assurance. Asia Pacific Education Review. 2018; 19; 4: 543-555. 10.1007/s12564-018-9550-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Healey, N. M. (2020). The end of transnational education? The view from the UK. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education,24 (3), 102–12.https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2019.1631227</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khor KA, Yu L-G. Influence of international co-authorship on the research citation impact of young universities. Scientometrics. 2016; 107; 3: 1095-1110. 10.1007/s11192-016-1905-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kwiek, M. (2016). From growth to decline? Demand-absorbing private higher education when demand is over. In M. Shah, & C. Sid Nair (Eds.), A Global Perspective on Private Higher Education (pp. 53–79). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100872-0.00004-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lane JE. Importing private higher education: International branch campuses. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice. 2011; 13; 4: 367-381. 10.1080/13876988.2011.583106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, J. M, & Park, H. W. (2024). Comparing news and non-news sites in Web3 domain. ROSA Journal, 2(1), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.62478/IZQA7486</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, M. N. N. (2005). International linkages in Malaysian private higher education. In Private higher education (pp. 141–44). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087901035_032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, Racheal. (2016). Building a township around Xiamen University Malaysia. Edgeprop.My. June 20, 2016. https://<ulink href="http://www.edgeprop.my/content/734840/building-township-around-xiamen-university-malaysia">www.edgeprop.my/content/734840/building-township-around-xiamen-university-malaysia</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee V-H, Hew J-J, Loke S-P. Evaluating and comparing ten-year (2006–2015) research performance between Malaysian public and private higher learning institutions: A bibliometric approach. International Journal of Innovation and Learning. 2018; 23; 2: 145-165. 10.1504/IJIL.2018.089618</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu Y, Zhang M, Zhang G, You X. Scientific elites versus other scientists: Who are better at taking advantage of the research collaboration network?. Scientometrics. 2022; 127: 3145-3166. 10.1007/s11192-022-04362-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morshidi S. Transnational higher education in Malaysia: Balancing benefits and concerns through regulations. RIHE International Publication Series. 2006; 10: 109-126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Munusamy MM, Hashim A. Internationalisation of higher education in Malaysia: Insights from higher education administrators. AEI Insights. 2019; 5; 1: 21-39</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ngeow C-B. China's universities go to Southeast Asia: Transnational knowledge transfer, soft power, sharp power. China Review. 2022; 22; 1: 221-248</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oyelaran-Oyeyinka B. Systems of innovation and underdevelopment: An institutional perspective. Science, Technology and Society. 2006; 11; 2: 239-269. 10.1177/097172180601100201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, H. W, & Barnett, G. A. (2024). ICA fellows' networking patterns in terms of collaboration, citation, and bibliographic coupling and the relevance of co-ethnicity. Scientometrics, 129, 5433–5452https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05112-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pohl H, Lane JE. Research contributions of international branch campuses to the scientific wealth of academically developing countries. Scientometrics. 2018; 116; 3: 1719-1734. 10.1007/s11192-018-2790-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porcelli, V, & Maharishi, M. (2019). What it means for NYUAD to be fully funded by the UAE. Washington Square News. https://nyunews.com/news/04/08/nyu-abu-dhabi-tax-returns/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puuska HM, Muhonen R, Leino Y. International and domestic co-publishing and their citation impact in different disciplines. Scientometrics. 2014; 98: 823-839. 10.1007/s11192-013-1181-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> QS Quacquarelli Symonds. (2023). QS world university rankings: South-Eastern Asia 2024. Top Universities. 2023. https://<ulink href="http://www.topuniversities.com/asia-university-rankings/south-eastern-asia">www.topuniversities.com/asia-university-rankings/south-eastern-asia</ulink>. Accessed 15 Feb 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shams F, Huisman J. The role of institutional dual embeddedness in the strategic local adaptation of international branch campuses: Evidence from Malaysia and Singapore. Studies in Higher Education. 2016; 41; 6: 955-970. 10.1080/03075079.2014.966669</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sin IL, Leung MWH, Waters JL. Degrees of value: Comparing the contextual complexities of UK transnational education in Malaysia and Hong Kong. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. 2019; 49; 1: 132-148. 10.1080/03057925.2017.1390663</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, M. A, Shneiderman, B, Milic-Frayling, N, Rodrigues, E. M, Barash, V, Dunne, C, Capone, T, Perer, A, & Gleave, E. (2009). Analyzing (social media) networks with NodeXL. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Communities and Technologies (pp. 255–64). C&T '09. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1556460.1556497</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Symaco, L. P, & Wan, C. D. (2017). Development of higher education in Malaysia: Issues and challenges. In Education in Malaysia: Developments and Challenges, edited by Moses Samuel, Meng Yew Tee, and Lorraine Pe Symaco, 53–66. Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4427-4_4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor P, Derudder B. World city network: A global urban analysis. 20152; Routledge. 10.4324/9781315730950</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torres-Olave B, Brown AM, Carrera LF, Ballinas C. Not waving but striving: Research collaboration in the context of stratification, segmentation, and the quest for prestige. The Journal of Higher Education. 2019; 91; 2: 275-299. 10.1080/00221546.2019.1631074</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang J, Frietsch R, Neuhäusler P, Hooi R. International collaboration leading to high citations: Global impact or home country effect?. Journal of Informetrics. 2024; 18; 4. 10.1016/j.joi.2024.101565101565</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilkins S. Two decades of international branch campus development, 2000–2020: A review. International Journal of Educational Management. 2020; 35; 1: 311-326. 10.1108/IJEM-08-2020-0409</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilkins S, Juusola K. The benefits and drawbacks of transnational higher education: Myths and realities. The Australian Universities' Review. 2020; 60; 2: 68-76. 10.3316/ielapa.818837312482658</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilkins, S, & Rumbley, L. E. (2019). What an international branch campus is, and is not: A revised definition. In Intelligent Internationalization, 172–75. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004418912_036.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang L, Li S, Oldac YI, Wang C. The agency-structure complex in international research collaboration: Evidence from a Chinese elite university. Studies in Higher Education. 2023; 49; 11: 2297-2310. 10.1080/03075079.2023.2298817</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yasin MY, Zain MABM, Hassan MHB. Urbanization and growth of Greater Kuala Lumpur: Issues and recommendations for urban growth management. Southeast Asia: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2022; 22; 2: 4-19. 10.1108/SEAMJ-02-2022-B1002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zain, N. M, Aspah, V, Abdullah, N, & Ebrahimi, M (2017). Challenges and evolution of higher education in Malaysia. UMRAN - International Journal of Islamic and Civilizational Studies,4 (1–1). https://doi.org/10.11113/umran2017.4n1-1.207.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0189682619-24"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Campuses are located in the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur or Putrajaya, or in the surrounding State of Selangor.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Pieter E. Stek and Han Woo Park</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref73"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1496699
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Influence of International Branch Campuses on Regional University Research Networks: The Case of Greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pieter+E%2E+Stek%22">Pieter E. Stek</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Han+Woo+Park%22">Han Woo Park</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Higher+Education%3A+The+International+Journal+of+Higher+Education+Research%22"><i>Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research</i></searchLink>. 2025 90(5):1235-1256.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 22
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multicampus+Colleges%22">Multicampus Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scientific+Research%22">Scientific Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Productivity%22">Productivity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Publications%22">Publications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Citations+%28References%29%22">Citations (References)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Authors%22">Authors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Networks%22">Networks</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22International+Programs%22">International Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Influences%22">Influences</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Malaysia+%28Kuala+Lumpur%29%22">Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10734-024-01374-z
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0018-1560<br />1573-174X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The growth of international branch campuses (IBCs) is a notable feature of the higher education system in several emerging economies. However, the impact of IBCs on the host regions is rarely analyzed. This study focuses on the unique case of Greater Kuala Lumpur, the most populous conurbation in Malaysia. Greater Kuala Lumpur has several large local public and private universities, as well as sizable IBCs from Australia, China, and the UK, with commensurate scientific output. The scientific output (publications and citations) and co-authorship networks of 13 major universities in Greater Kuala Lumpur are analyzed between 2013 and 2022. The results show that IBCs receive more citations per publication, suggesting that their research output has greater scientific influence compared to local institutions. Their greater scientific influence correlates to IBCs' stronger position in co-authorship networks and their higher rates of (international) research collaboration. Over time, IBCs appear to deepen their connections to the Greater Kuala Lumpur research system, while the relative importance of the research relationships with the home campus declines. In terms of the international orientation of their research network, IBCs are similar to local public universities. For policymakers, this implies that attracting IBCs can expand the university system and increase a region's scientific influence. However, these benefits should be weighed against policy alternatives, such as reforming and increasing support for local universities.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1496699
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1496699
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10734-024-01374-z
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 22
        StartPage: 1235
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Multicampus Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scientific Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Productivity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Publications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Citations (References)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Authors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Networks
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: International Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Influence of International Branch Campuses on Regional University Research Networks: The Case of Greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pieter E. Stek
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Han Woo Park
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0018-1560
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-174X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 90
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1