The enhanced fact file
Not a scorecard. A dossier that tells a university leader exactly where the strengths, the risks and the fundable opportunities are, every figure sourced from the open research record.
The one-screen strategic read
The first thing a leader needs is not more data, it is a verdict. Three strengths to lead with, three challenges to manage, three opportunities to act on, each drawn straight from the network below.
Scholarly weight
Collaboration only counts if the work lands. This is the citation weight of everything produced with partners, the substance under the network.
Visualisation 1
The six scored pillars plus the brokerage diagnostic, each shown as a global percentile. The dashed ring marks the top-decile benchmark; anything inside it is a genuine, defensible strength.
Technical University of Denmark is strongest on network international, sustained, reach. Its brokerage is a defining signal: 128 of 140 anchor partners (92%) are non-redundant, meaning it bridges research communities that would otherwise stay disconnected, rather than simply publishing widely.
The pillar with the most headroom is Impact (58th percentile): the single most useful line on the chart, because it points straight at the opportunities below.
Source: the open global research record, co-authored works 2021-2025, fractional countingThe anatomy of your standing
Six pillars, each weighted, combine into one standing index. Nothing is hidden: this is the entire calculation, in a single bar.
Brokerage is reported alongside as a diagnostic, not folded into the score, so a university cannot inflate its standing simply by publishing widely. It measures whether you connect communities that would otherwise stay apart.
Visualisation 2
Each subject placed on a log scale of world rank (1 to 1,195). The further left, the more globally central. Gold marks a top-3 crown jewel.
The strongest field is Chemical Engineering, ranked #17 in the world for connected research, with 4 fields inside the world top 100. The chart instantly separates the crown jewels to lead with from the at-risk subjects slipping down the scale: social sciences is the softest domain at world #426.
Source: subject-level indices, 26 fields, minimum 50-university gateDiscipline deep-dive
The same network split into its four broad domains, each with its world rank for connected research and the five partners it leans on most. This is the view a dean or pro-vice-chancellor acts on.
Visualisation 3
Every anchor partner plotted by collaboration volume against the citation impact of the joint work. The prize quadrant is top-right: high volume and high impact. The bottom-right is the trap: a lot of output, little impact.
Harvard University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 8.3): a consortium waiting to happen. University of Copenhagen, by contrast, is the scale partner: FWCI 3.5, still well above the world average of 1.0; deepening impact here would compound fastest. Yield classes are relative to this partner set, not to the world.
| Partner | Joint works | FWCI | Yield |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🇩🇰 University of Copenhagen | 2,407 | 3.5 | Volume-led |
| 🇩🇰 Aarhus University | 863 | 3.1 | Volume-led |
| 🇩🇰 Aalborg University | 639 | 2.7 | Volume-led |
| 🇸🇪 Lund University | 518 | 3.4 | Volume-led |
| 🇩🇰 University of Southern Denmark | 467 | 2.6 | Volume-led |
| 🇳🇴 Norwegian University of Science and Technology | 427 | 4.2 | Standard |
| 🇸🇪 Chalmers University of Technology | 414 | 4.8 | Standard |
| 🇺🇸 Harvard University | 352 | 8.3 | High impact |
| 🇺🇸 Massachusetts Institute of Technology | 330 | 5.8 | Standard |
| 🇫🇷 Université Paris-Saclay | 327 | 6.6 | Standard |
Visualisation 4
The network spans 77 countries and 1,107 universities, but the top two countries (United States and Denmark) carry about 40% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Middle East white-space (only 0 of its 2 leading collaborators are anchor partners) is the clearest gap to close.
Visualisation 5
€591M across 951 EU-funded projects from the European Commission alone, split €301M Horizon Europe and €290M Horizon 2020, every project traceable to the funder's own award record (CORDIS). Your enhanced fact file adds UKRI, the ERC and the world's major national funders, each named and linked, never a single black-box platform.
Funding is shown next to the network because the two move together: the fundable opportunities below are chosen where a real programme already exists to pay for the bridge.
Source: funders' own award systems + CORDIS, awards active 2021-2025 · verifiedVisualisation 6
Not a generic wish-list. Globally central universities you are not yet deeply partnered with, each with the reason it matters and the specific programme that would fund the collaboration.
University of Hong Kong ranks #5 in Computer Science, one of your strongest fields. A natural, fundable bridge you have not yet built at scale.
Funding route: a bilateral programme linking the DFF and the RGC, or a Horizon Europe consortium
Chinese University of Hong Kong ranks #12 in Chemical Engineering, one of your strongest fields. A natural, fundable bridge you have not yet built at scale.
Funding route: a bilateral programme linking the DFF and the RGC, or a Horizon Europe consortium
Monash University ranks #6 in Computer Science, one of your strongest fields. A natural, fundable bridge you have not yet built at scale.
Funding route: a bilateral programme linking the DFF and the ARC, or a Horizon Europe consortium
King's College London ranks #62 in Computer Science, one of your strongest fields. A natural, fundable bridge you have not yet built at scale.
Funding route: a bilateral programme linking the DFF and UKRI, or a Horizon Europe consortium
The research base
A partnership does not plug into a name, it plugs into a base: the affiliated hospitals, presses, institutes and archives, and the research themes where the joint work concentrates.
Context
The named peer group your fact file compares you to, pillar by pillar and subject by subject.
The most-cited work produced with partners, each verifiable.
From insight to action
The dossier ends where a strategy meeting begins: three moves, sequenced, each pointing back to a specific finding above.
Adopt HKU and one Middle East hub as formal partnership targets; brief the relevant department heads with the joint white-space evidence.
Scope the specific bilateral or cross-region call for each target, and convert the Harvard University tie into a consortium concept in the strongest shared field, anchored on Chemical Engineering.
Address the impact gap; review the high-volume, low-impact partnerships for quality; set a diversification target for the long tail; and secure an editorial feature in the reputation-survey window.
Exclusive to partners
Every partnership includes the full intelligence on your named competitive set, their strengths, their funders, their white-space, so you can see exactly where you lead and where to close the gap. Two peers with Recognition, five with Partnership, up to ten with Flagship.
Partnership also places your research as editorial features in the Research Network Report, our newsletter to a verified global academic audience, timed to the reputation-survey season. Every send comes with a full performance report: opens, clicks and geography, benchmarked against the edition.
A small number of institutions work with us as partners, with verified data, editorial reach across our global network, and intelligence that supports a deeper understanding of their peers. Detail is shared on request, and a partnership never changes a position.
Request a partnership conversation →