Table 13 Centrality and research output based on different quality and innovation.

From: The impact of collaboration networks constructed through common project experience on research output

Group

Higher quality and innovation

Lower quality and innovation

Higher quality and innovation

Lower quality and innovation

Higher quality and innovation

Lower quality and innovation

Dependent variable

TNum

TNum

TQuo

TQuo

Vrs

Vrs

 

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Cen

0.017***

0.010***

1.157***

0.740***

0.024***

0.017***

 

(4.91)

(3.25)

(8.70)

(5.73)

(5.66)

(3.56)

Tit

3.699***

2.958***

174.644***

82.972***

6.432***

4.394***

 

(16.08)

(20.94)

(13.54)

(13.69)

(16.15)

(19.24)

Fund

0.079***

0.075***

2.197***

1.283***

0.086***

0.075***

 

(9.32)

(6.11)

(6.79)

(3.19)

(8.46)

(5.19)

Time

2.760***

2.108***

0.298

33.703**

−1.457**

0.353

 

(6.21)

(5.16)

(0.01)

(2.15)

(−1.98)

(0.43)

WHum

0.794***

0.489***

5.929***

5.747***

0.501***

0.232***

 

(17.53)

(13.48)

(2.86)

(5.20)

(8.21)

(4.75)

Constant

−14.236***

−11.368***

−283.372***

−250.098***

2.238

−1.566

 

(−9.57)

(−8.75)

(−4.28)

(−4.94)

(0.87)

(−0.57)

Year_FE

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Discipline_FE

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Funding_FE

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Institution_FE

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Empirical P Value

0.030

0.000

0.080

Adj. R2

0.320

0.381

0.185

0.244

0.221

0.285

N

20832

22007

20832

22007

20832

22007

  1. All regressions include project start year, discipline type, funding type, and host institution fixed effects. Standard errors are clustered by institution. T statistic is presented in parenthesis. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.