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
Seven pillars, each shown as a global percentile. The dashed ring marks the top-decile benchmark; anything inside it is a genuine, defensible strength.
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston is strongest on network influence, brokerage, diversity. Its brokerage is a defining signal: 143 of 160 partners (89%) 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 International (38th 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.
Five fields rank #1 in the world for connected research: Medicine, Environmental Science, Psychology, Neuroscience and Mathematics. On a normal university this chart spreads across the scale and instantly separates the crown jewels to lead with from the at-risk subjects slipping down it.
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 is a mid-sized partner by volume but returns an FWCI of 10.5, the highest-impact relationship in the set: a consortium waiting to happen. Mahidol, by contrast, is one of the largest partners by output yet the lowest-yield (FWCI 1.9): worth a hard look at what that volume is buying.
| Partner | Joint works | FWCI | Yield |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center | 2,407 | 2.2 | Low yield |
| 🇺🇸 The University of Texas at San Antonio | 2,265 | 2.2 | Low yield |
| 🇺🇸 Baylor College of Medicine | 2,109 | 2.9 | Standard |
| 🇺🇸 Harvard University | 1,213 | 5.7 | Standard |
| 🇺🇸 Johns Hopkins University | 1,178 | 4.5 | Standard |
| 🇺🇸 University of California, San Francisco | 883 | 4.4 | Standard |
| 🇺🇸 University of Washington | 815 | 5.4 | Standard |
| 🇺🇸 University of Houston | 800 | 2.2 | Low yield |
| 🇺🇸 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill | 724 | 4.3 | Standard |
| 🇺🇸 University of Michigan | 718 | 4.8 | Standard |
Visualisation 4
The network spans 80 countries and 1,185 universities, but the top two countries carry about 86% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Middle East white-space (0 of the region's 2 leading collaborators) is the clearest gap to close.
Visualisation 5
The European Commission award record shows no Horizon funding attributed to this university in the current window, which is common outside the EU. Your enhanced fact file maps the national and bilateral funders that actually back this network, from NSFC, JSPS and A*STAR to NIH, NSF, UKRI and the ERC, each named and linked, so every fundable opportunity below sits next to a real programme that could pay for it.
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 is top-146 globally in Health Sciences. A natural, fundable bridge you have not yet built at scale.
Funding route: a bilateral programme (e.g. NSFC/DFG/UKRI/NSF or an ERC-eligible consortium)
Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-132 globally in Health Sciences. A natural, fundable bridge you have not yet built at scale.
Funding route: a bilateral programme (e.g. NSFC/DFG/UKRI/NSF or an ERC-eligible consortium)
Monash University is top-43 globally in Health Sciences. A natural, fundable bridge you have not yet built at scale.
Funding route: a bilateral programme (e.g. NSFC/DFG/UKRI/NSF or an ERC-eligible consortium)
The University of Queensland is top-69 globally in Health Sciences. A natural, fundable bridge you have not yet built at scale.
Funding route: a bilateral programme (e.g. NSFC/DFG/UKRI/NSF or an ERC-eligible 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 Nanyang Technological University 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 HFSP / Belmont Forum call for each target, and convert the Harvard tie into a consortium concept in the strongest shared field, Environmental Science.
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.
Submit your data and we will build and review your enhanced fact file with you, then show exactly how a partnership turns it into advantage, before the index goes public on 15 September 2026.
Request a partnership conversation →