Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for City, University of London (United Kingdom), ranked in the global index.  See a world-leading example (Oxford) →

The enhanced fact file

Your entire collaboration network, read like a strategist would.

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.

โ—‡ Ranked in the Research Collaboration Index
๐ŸŒ Europe · 417 universities benchmarked
8,153
co-authored works, 5 years
824
partner universities
74
partner countries
408
sustained deep ties
3.45
collaboration impact (FWCI)
89%
of partners non-redundant

The one-screen strategic read

Where you stand, at a glance.

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.

Strengths
  • Business, Management & Accounting is the standout field. Ranked #94 in the world for connected research, with Economics, Econometrics & Finance #237, Health Professions #293 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on impact and international. City, University of London sits in the 89th percentile for impact and the 81st for international: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 111 of 125 partners (89%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Sustained is the softest pillar. At the 27th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Life Sciences is the at-risk domain. World #1,160 for connected research, far behind the rest of the portfolio: a real gap, not a crown jewel.
  • Network concentration. The top two partner countries (United Kingdom and United States) carry about 70% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win CUHK. World top-3. Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-130 globally in Social Sciences. Route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program.
  • Win NTU Singapore. World top-14. Nanyang Technological University is top-280 globally in Social Sciences. Route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. The University of Melbourne returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 6.0). Formalise it into a funded consortium to compound impact, not just volume.

Scholarly weight

The impact behind the network

Collaboration only counts if the work lands. This is the citation weight of everything produced with partners, the substance under the network.

422
h-index of the joint research base
1.6M
citations to co-authored work
3.45
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
8,153
co-authored works, 2021-2025
68
collaboration efficiency, impact per tie

Visualisation 1

Your collaboration profile

Seven pillars, each shown as a global percentile. The dashed ring marks the top-decile benchmark; anything inside it is a genuine, defensible strength.

Influence35th pctReach29th pctDiversity46th pctSustained27th pctImpact89th pctInternational81st pctBrokerage40th pct

City, University of London is strongest on impact (89th percentile), international (81st) and diversity (46th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 111 of 125 partners (89%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Sustained (27th percentile), the softest of the six and the clearest place to build.

Source: the open global research record, co-authored works 2021–2025, fractional counting

The anatomy of your standing

Exactly what your position is built from

Six pillars, each weighted, combine into one standing index. Nothing is hidden: this is the entire calculation, in a single bar.

InflImpaSustReacDiveInteEach block is a pillarโ€™s weighted contribution; together they place the university in the global ranked cohort.
Influence22% weight35th pct+7.7
Impact18% weight89th pct+16.0
Sustained18% weight27th pct+4.9
Reach16% weight29th pct+4.6
Diversity16% weight46th pct+7.4
International10% weight81st pct+8.1

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

Where you lead the world, by field

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-50 standout, blue a solid position.

#1#10#100#1000Business, Management &โ€ฆ94Economics, Econometricโ€ฆ237Health Professions293Decision Sciences353Neuroscience376Social Sciences397
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

City, University of London's strongest connected fields are Business, Management & Accounting #94, Economics, Econometrics & Finance #237, Health Professions #293. The portfolio leans on social sciences; Life Sciences, at world #1,160 in the deep-dive below, is the clear at-risk area, exactly the gap this chart surfaces.

Source: subject-level indices, 26 fields, minimum 50-university gate

Discipline deep-dive

How you collaborate, faculty by faculty

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.

Health & Medicine
World #962 for connected research
20/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง UCL317
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง King's College London200
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง St George's, Universiโ€ฆ109
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Imperial College Londโ€ฆ74
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Queen Mary Universityโ€ฆ67
Life Sciences
World #1160 for connected research
3/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง UCL84
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง King's College London46
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Oxford35
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Queโ€ฆ26
๐Ÿ‡ณ๐Ÿ‡ฑ Maastricht University23
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #1078 for connected research
10/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Oxford96
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง UCL93
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง St George's, Universiโ€ฆ58
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nankai University47
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Sโ€ฆ43
Social Sciences
World #709 for connected research
41/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง UCL171
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง King's College London164
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง St George's, Universiโ€ฆ115
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Oxford82
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Queen Mary Universityโ€ฆ72
Source: domain-level co-authorship, partner institutions 2021–2025

Visualisation 3

Which partnerships actually pay off

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.

Joint works (collaboration volume) →Impact (FWCI) →high yieldUCLKing's College LonUniversity of EdinThe University of
High yieldStandardLow yield

The University of Melbourne returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 6.0): a consortium waiting to happen. University of Edinburgh, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.9: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University College London601 3.6Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง King's College London408 4.8Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง St George's, University of London270 3.0Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Oxford222 4.7Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Queen Mary University of London174 4.7Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Imperial College London142 4.7Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Cambridge130 3.5Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Edinburgh109 2.9Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Nottingham107 4.5Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Melbourne101 6.0High yield
Source: institution-to-institution co-authorship ledger + field-weighted citation impact

Visualisation 4

Your global reach, and where it thins out

Top partner countries

๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 4,323
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ United States 962
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 529
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 402
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 377
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡น Italy 317
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 307
๐Ÿ‡ณ๐Ÿ‡ฑ Netherlands 303

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University College London 601
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง King's College London 408
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง St George's, University of London 270
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Oxford 222
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Queen Mary University of London 174
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Imperial College London 142
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Cambridge 130
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Edinburgh 109

The network spans 74 countries and 824 universities, but the top two carry about 70% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives.

Source: co-authorship by partner-institution country, 2021–2025

Visualisation 6

The partners to win next

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.

๐Ÿ‡ญ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-3

Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-130 globally in Social Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in your strongest field.

Funding route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program

๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฌ Nanyang Technological University Singapore · world top-14

Nanyang Technological University is top-280 globally in Social Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in your strongest field.

Funding route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Yale University United States · world top-17

Yale University is top-71 globally in Social Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in your strongest field.

Funding route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California San Diego United States · world top-18

University of California San Diego is top-252 globally in Social Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in your strongest field.

Funding route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant

Source: network white-space analysis + funder-programme mapping

The research base

The ecosystem behind the collaboration

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.

Moorfields Eye Hospital
Economics, Econometrics and FinanceBusiness, Management and AccountingMedicineEngineering

Context

Your competitive set, and your signature research

Benchmarked against

The named peer group your fact file compares you to, pillar by pillar and subject by subject.

๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nanjing Medical UniversityChina
๐Ÿ‡ณ๐Ÿ‡ฟ Victoria University of WellingtonNew Zealand
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Medical University of South CarolinaUnited States
University of JordanJO
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of MississippiUnited States
Financial Markets and Investment StrategiesCorporate Finance and GovernanceBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesPhotonic and Optical DevicesVisual perception and processing mechanisms

From insight to action

A 90-day plan, written from the data.

The dossier ends where a strategy meeting begins: three moves, sequenced, each pointing back to a specific finding above.

0-30 days
Name the target

Adopt CUHK as formal partnership targets; brief the relevant deans with the joint white-space evidence.

30-60 days
Open the funding route

Scope the specific programme for each target, and turn the The University of Melbourne tie into a consortium concept in Social Sciences.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the sustained gap and the life sciences weakness; set a diversification target for the long tail; and secure an editorial feature in the reputation-survey window.

Your fact file

Claim the full fact file for City, University of London.

Everything above is the open view. The full partner fact file goes further: every ranked subject and subfield, the complete partner ledger with yield, your named academics and their signature work, the funder-by-funder route map for each target, and this same dossier on up to ten named peers.

Partner fact file · locked

Unlocked for partners. Confirm before 12:00, Tuesday 25 August 2026 to be included at the 15 September launch.

See the full enhanced fact file → Claim & verify yours

Free to claim and verify your data. No obligation. Your ranking is unaffected by partnership, and always will be.

Exclusive to partners

Plus this same dossier on up to 10 of your peers.

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.

Your research, in front of 170,000 academics, with full reporting.

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.

The Research Network Report

170,000
verified academic subscribers worldwide
Nov–Jan
timed to the reputation-survey season
Full report
opens, clicks and geography on every feature

See your own dossier, built for your university.

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 →
Global Research Partnerships · globalresearchpartnerships.com/rci · Built on the open global research record and the award data of the world's major funders. Methodology.