Impact of academic title structure of university research teams on research output: evidence from 30 Chinese universities

China’s innovation-driven development strategy places strong emphasis on advancing scientific and technological innovation, positioning universities as primary sites of knowledge creation and research output. Prior work indicates academic titles significantly influence research productivity, often more than factors like salary, research time, and collaboration. The literature on academic title and output comprises three strands: (1) individual-level studies showing higher titles correlate with greater quantity and quality of publications, with senior-titled scholars being more productive; (2) institution-level studies linking the structure of titles (distribution of senior, associate senior, etc.) to university development and research output; (3) mechanism-focused research highlighting the mediating role of research resources (e.g., grants, projects), with senior scholars attracting more external resources due to accumulated reputation and capital (Matthew effect). However, existing studies largely emphasize a single pathway via research resources and give limited attention to social contribution as a mechanism. Broader literature suggests universities demonstrate value and obtain resources through social contributions (e.g., awards and recognized problem-solving). This study posits that social contribution may act both as an independent mediator and in a chain with research resources. The paper asks: (1) What is the impact of academic title structure on research output? (2) Through what mechanisms does title structure affect output—does social contribution mediate independently or via research resources in a chain? (3) Do different title levels have differing impacts? To answer these, the study uses panel data for materials science and engineering disciplines in 30 research-oriented Chinese universities (2016–2020) to ensure comparability and relevance to societal needs, employing fixed-effects models to test chain mediation.

The literature divides into three primary areas. First, individual-level analyses find a positive relationship between title rank and research productivity and impact, with senior titles producing more publications. Second, management and structural studies at the university level show that research output is influenced by the composition of titles, implying the strategic importance of having appropriate proportions of senior and associate senior positions. Third, mechanism studies emphasize research resources (e.g., research funding, projects, platforms) as mediators; due to the Matthew effect, renowned scientists disproportionately attract resources and opportunities, which then elevate output. Additional literature underscores the significance of social contribution (e.g., awards, societal impact) for university development and resource acquisition, suggesting a potential dual mediating role—both independent and chained through research resources. Building on this, the paper develops hypotheses: H1: positive impacts on output decrease in the order national-level talents > senior titles > associate senior titles. H2: research resources mediate between title structure and output. H3: social contribution independently mediates. H4: social contribution and research resources jointly form a chain mediating pathway.

Design and sample: Balanced panel data were collected for materials science and engineering disciplines across 30 Chinese universities from 2016 to 2020 (150 observations). These universities grant master’s and doctoral degrees in the first-level discipline, are research oriented, and include national-level research talents, ensuring comparability and relevance to societal contribution. Variables: Dependent variable is research output measured by the number of SCI-indexed papers published. Independent variables capture academic title structure: the proportions of national-level talents, senior titles, and associate senior titles among full-time faculty. Mediators are (1) social contribution, proxied by counts of provincial-level and above scientific research awards (National Natural Science, National Technological Invention, National S&T Progress, MOE Outstanding Scientific Research Achievement Awards, provincial awards), and (2) research resources, assessed via an equal-weight composite of three indicators: number of research platforms at provincial level and above, number of NSFC-funded projects, and annual research funds received. Controls include university level (Project 211/985 dummy), location in Beijing–Shanghai–Guangzhou (province dummy), and log-transformed counts of postgraduates and full-time teachers, to mitigate multicollinearity. Econometric approach: Fixed-effects models with year fixed effects, province fixed effects, and university level fixed effects are estimated. Chain mediation is tested following Wen and Ye’s sequential procedure. The modeling sequence includes: (1) total effect of title structure on output; (2) effects of title structure on mediators; (3) mediator interrelations (social contribution -> research resources); and (4) simultaneous inclusion of mediators to estimate direct and indirect (independent and chain) effects. Significance of path coefficients determines mediation. Descriptive statistics confirm variation across key variables (e.g., mean SCI papers 201.3; mean proportions: national-level talents 0.14, senior titles 0.39, associate senior 0.40).

- Both the proportion of national-level talents and the proportion of senior titles significantly increase research output; the associate senior proportion shows a small, statistically insignificant negative total effect. - From Model (1): total effects on research output: national-level talents 430.20 (p<0.01), senior titles 266.90 (p<0.01), associate senior −0.67 (ns). This supports H1: national-level > senior > associate senior. - Mediation via social contribution and research resources is confirmed for national-level talents and senior titles (H2–H4). Key path coefficients: • Title -> Social contribution: national-level 13.33 (p<0.01); senior 5.16 (p<0.10). • Title -> Research resources: national-level 11.09 (p<0.01); senior 6.35 (p<0.10). • Social contribution -> Research output: 4.60 (p<0.10). • Research resources -> Research output: 4.50 (p<0.05). • Social contribution -> Research resources: 0.44 (p<0.01), supporting the chain pathway. - Direct effects (Model 4): national-level talents 292.78 (p<0.01); senior titles 204.47 (p<0.05), indicating partial mediation. - Indirect effect magnitudes (Table 3): For national-level talents, total indirect effect = 137.62 (31.99% of total), decomposed into social contribution path 61.32 (14.25%), research resources path 49.91 (11.60%), and chain path 26.39 (6.13%). For senior titles, total indirect effect = 62.54 (23.43%), decomposed into 23.74 (8.89%), 28.58 (10.71%), and 10.22 (3.83%), respectively. - Comparative strength: national-level talents have much stronger impacts on social contribution (13.33 vs 5.16) and resource acquisition (11.09 vs 6.35) than senior titles. Social contribution exerts a slightly stronger effect on output than research resources (4.60 vs 4.50). - Controls: Higher university level and larger postgraduate and faculty size are positively associated with research output and/or resource acquisition; fixed effects accounted for temporal, provincial, and level heterogeneity.

The findings directly answer the research questions. First, title structure matters substantially for output, with national-level talents exerting the largest effect, followed by senior titles, while associate senior proportions do not significantly raise output. Second, mechanisms operate through both social contribution and research resources, with evidence for independent and chain mediation: higher-title teams generate more socially recognized contributions, which in turn facilitate resource acquisition, and both channels elevate publication output. The significant path from social contribution to research resources supports the view that societal recognition helps attract grants, projects, and platforms. Third, social contribution shows a slightly stronger association with output than research resources, underscoring the value of solving real-world problems and accruing societal recognition. Together, the results suggest that universities seeking to boost research output should strategically enhance the share of high-end talents and build systems that reward and amplify social contributions to indirectly expand resources and outputs. The pattern aligns with theories of cumulative advantage (Matthew effect) and leadership-driven team productivity, reinforcing the importance of academic standing in mobilizing resources and shaping research environments.

This study analyzes how the academic title structure of university research teams affects research output using panel data for materials science and engineering disciplines in 30 Chinese universities (2016–2020) and fixed-effects chain mediation models. Main conclusions: (1) Higher shares of national-level talents and senior titles significantly boost research output, with national-level talents having the strongest influence; associate senior shares show an insignificant negative total effect. (2) Social contribution and research resources both mediate these relationships, independently and in a chain; social contribution more strongly enhances output and also promotes resource acquisition. (3) Teams with more national-level talents are more capable of producing socially recognized contributions and attracting resources than teams with only higher shares of senior titles. Policy implications include improving high-end talent introduction policies, increasing support and guidance for associate senior researchers, and building research evaluation systems centered on social influence to guide resource acquisition via social contributions. Future research should expand beyond materials disciplines to other fields and international contexts and further address potential reverse causality between titles and output.

- Disciplinary scope: The sample is limited to materials science and engineering in 30 Chinese universities; generalizability to other disciplines, whole universities, or other countries needs validation. - Causality: Potential reverse causality may exist—higher research output can attract higher-title researchers and better institutions, complicating causal inference despite fixed effects. - Measurement constraints: Social contribution is proxied by award counts and research resources by a weighted composite of platforms, NSFC projects, and funds; alternative or richer measures may yield additional insights. - Data availability: Raw data are not shareable by the authors, limiting external replication beyond the reported statistics.