Several strategies are used by researchers and research facilities to increase their scientific production and consequent research quality. Bibliometric records show that coauthorship and the number of participating organizations in research publications are steadily increasing; however, the effect of collaboration varies across disciplines, and the corresponding author’s country appears to influence research impact. This finding inspired our research question for this study: How does international cooperation affect scientific impact, and does the affiliation of corresponding authors influence citation impact indicators at the level of individual publications? To this end, we provide a comparative evaluation of research articles published in Q1 journals among Visegrad Group countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) in Medical and Health sciences between 2017 and 2021. The study investigates the relationship between collaboration type (national vs. international) and scientific impact (impact factor of the journal and category normalized citation impact or research papers), as well as the impact of the country of the corresponding author’s affiliation on quantitative quality of individual papers. We show that Q1 research papers in international collaboration have a higher scientific impact than papers published in national partnerships. Moreover, the corresponding authors’ country of affiliation significantly affects scientific impact.

This study examines the revenue diversification of the Top 30 higher education institutions (HEIs) as identified in the 2025 Times Higher Education and QS World University Rankings. Faced with declining government appropriations, HEIs are strategically diversifying revenue streams. Our analysis of financial reports reveals substantial variability in revenue sources, with some institutions primarily relying on research grants, tuition, and government funding. In contrast, others prioritize income from endowments, services, or medical activities. While funding optimization strategies may prioritize single revenue sources for short-term convenience, our findings suggest they risk institutional fragility, highlighting the need for sustainable financial models that balance research productivity, teaching quality, and public service over the long term. This article emphasizes the vital importance of financial autonomy, which enables institutions to invest strategically in recruiting top academic and research staff, upgrading research infrastructure, and enhancing an institution’s overall performance. While strategic autonomy empowers institutions to achieve excellence and adapt flexibly to evolving societal needs, they must remain true to their core mission of public service as they diversify and optimize revenue sources.

Universities have undergone a profound transformation to increase their competitiveness and research performance; evaluating their research output and scientific impact is therefore of great importance. This article aims to suggest an approach to analyze how the JIF quartile share of research articles differs among European universities in medical science, and how the byline positions of affiliated and non-affiliated authors can influence an article’s scientific impact. We examined the research output of universities in the Top 5 European and Visegrad Group Countries based on the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Ranking 2022 (University of Oxford, ETH Zurich, Karolinska Institute, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, KU Leuven, Semmelweis University, Jagiellonian University, Charles University Prague, and Comenius University Bratislava). We found that the share of Q1 and the less prestigious Q3 and Q4 papers are inversely proportional when plotted against the ranks of universities. Whilst the proportion of Q1 papers is higher for the Top 5 universities, this ratio decreases with a less prominent place in the ranking. The presence of non-affiliated authors in the first, last, and corresponding author byline positions has a significantly positive effect on the Category Normalized Citation Impact, correlating with the position of the university in the ranking. Moreover, the difference in the Category Normalized Citation Impact between papers with affiliated and non-affiliated authors is also specific to university rank.

Collaboration between researchers has been shown to influence their productivity and scientific impact. Although these ties have been widely discussed in the literature, the nature of the co-authorship networks between the most successful scholars remains a question. To provide an answer, this study conducts a cross-case analysis of the collaboration networks between Highly Cited Researchers, focusing on the research output and co-authorship patterns in Highly Cited Papers across three award categories: Clinical Medicine, Materials Science, and Social Sciences. Our findings indicate that there are category-specific differences in publication output and the intensity of collaboration between Highly Cited Researchers. Notably, Highly Cited Researchers in the Social Sciences demonstrate a less collaborative approach to research than those in Clinical Medicine and Materials Science. While Highly Cited Researchers in all three categories featured interconnected collaboration networks among themselves, those in Clinical Medicine and Materials Science exhibited a more collaborative environment, while those in Social Sciences showed a tendency towards independent research efforts. The case of Social Sciences is further evidenced by higher fragmentation within the collaboration network of Social Sciences, indicating a less cohesive collaborative framework. The analysis of the Giant Component—the largest cohesive subset of the network—revealed that it is less representative of the overall network structure in the Social Sciences than in Clinical Medicine and Materials Science. Finally, the centrality measures indicated that Highly Cited Researchers with high betweenness and closeness centrality act as crucial bridges within each network, significantly shaping the structural cohesion and collaborative dynamics of their respective fields.

Purpose – The aim of this study is to examine the regional distribution of Highly Cited Researchers from 2020 to 2024, and to explore the dynamics of research excellence across different regions. The analysis is conducted not only on a global level but also at the level of 21 research clusters. Design/methodology/approach – The analysis is based on the annually published Highly Cited Researchers list by Clarivate. The first phase of the study determined the regional distribution of 34,225 Highly Cited Researchers between 2020 and 2024. Subsequently, the focus shifted to the distribution of HCRs across 21 research clusters, analyzed on an annual basis. Findings – Although North America holds the leading position in the number of Highly Cited Researchers during the examined period, Asia—particularly China—shows significant growth. Asia surpassed Europe in 2023 and 2024. The cluster-specific regional distribution exhibits substantial heterogeneity. North America dominates most research clusters; however, there are notable instances of Asia's strong advancement. The results also reveal a significant linear relationship between Highly Cited Papers and Highly Cited Researchers. Originality – This is the first study to analyze the changes in the regional distribution of Highly Cited Researchers in a 5-year time window. While Asia’s global representation in scientific outputs has been long recognized, our findings emphasize global trends at the level of research clusters and highlight the need to reconsider research and cooperation strategies.

This article examines the longitudinal stability, internal consistency, and stratifying effects of Shanghai Ranking’s Global Ranking of Academic Subjects (Shanghai GRAS) in six subjects of Medical Sciences (2017–2025). While Shanghai GRAS has gained prominence as a global higher education benchmark, little is known about the empirical consequences of its methodological changes. Using a quantitative approach combining descriptive statistics, indicator score and overall score change analysis, and K-means clustering, we evaluated the effects of indicator revisions, weight adjustments, and new data sources on institutional trajectories. Our findings show that global methodological alterations influencing all subjects generate substantial volatility, especially for institutions outside the top clusters. The 2019 Category Normalized Citation Impact revision corresponded with overall score increases, while the 2024 methodology restructuring led to significant score declines in general, but the rankings of leading institutions either improved or were not affected. Our findings challenge assumptions about the comparability of rankings and reveal their performative role in reinforcing institutional hierarchies, while also calling for more transparent, context-sensitive evaluation frameworks that reflect the epistemic diversity of global academia.