Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Khalifa University of Science and Technology (AE), a Silver-band university.  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—‹ Silver standing · Research Collaboration Index
๐ŸŒ Middle East · 38 universities benchmarked
23,573
co-authored works, 5 years
1,037
partner universities
77
partner countries
673
sustained deep ties
3.52
collaboration impact (FWCI)
92%
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
  • Engineering is the standout field. Ranked #29 in the world for connected research, with Energy #43, Materials Science #47 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on international and impact. Khalifa University of Science and Technology sits in the 98th percentile for international and the 91st for impact: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 140 of 152 partners (92%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Influence is the softest pillar. At the 41st percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Social Sciences is the at-risk domain. World #1,051 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 States and United Kingdom) carry about 42% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win Monash University. World top-7. Monash University is top-215 globally in Physical Sciences. Route: the Human Frontier Science Program or a Belmont Forum collaborative-research action.
  • Win Yale University. World top-17. Yale University is top-401 globally in Physical Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. University of Nottingham returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 5.5). 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.

274
h-index of the joint research base
1.0M
citations to co-authored work
3.52
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
23,573
co-authored works, 2021-2025
85
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.

Influence41st pctReach69th pctDiversity64th pctSustained64th pctImpact91st pctInternational98th pctBrokerage81st pct

Khalifa University of Science and Technology is strongest on international (98th percentile), impact (91st) and reach (69th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 140 of 152 partners (92%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Influence (41st 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 Silver band worldwide.
Influence22% weight41st pct+9.0
Impact18% weight91st pct+16.4
Sustained18% weight64th pct+11.5
Reach16% weight69th pct+11.0
Diversity16% weight64th pct+10.2
International10% weight98th pct+9.8

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#1000Engineering29Energy43Materials Science47Chemical Engineering69Chemistry196Computer Sci.240
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

Khalifa University of Science and Technology's strongest connected fields are Engineering #29, Energy #43, Materials Science #47. The portfolio leans on physical sciences & engineering; Social Sciences, at world #1,051 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 #896 for connected research
25/100
Top collaboration partners
United Arab Emirates โ€ฆ104
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ท Aristotle University โ€ฆ81
University of Sharjah59
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Oxford57
King Abdulaziz Univerโ€ฆ49
Life Sciences
World #1048 for connected research
12/100
Top collaboration partners
United Arab Emirates โ€ฆ152
University of Sharjah43
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Murdoch University34
๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ‡ช KU Leuven32
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช University of Lรผbeck28
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #376 for connected research
69/100
Top collaboration partners
King Fahd University โ€ฆ298
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Manchesโ€ฆ265
United Arab Emirates โ€ฆ256
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ New York University234
๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฌ NTU Singapore174
Social Sciences
World #1051 for connected research
12/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ท Aristotle University โ€ฆ33
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Aston University31
United Arab Emirates โ€ฆ28
University of Sharjah25
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ช Ollscoil na Gaillimheโ€ฆ19
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 yieldUnited Arab EmiratKing Fahd UniversiNTU SingaporeUniversity of Jord
High yieldStandardLow yield

University of Nottingham returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 5.5): a consortium waiting to happen. University of Jordan, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 1.1: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
United Arab Emirates University474 3.4Standard
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals307 3.4Standard
University of Sharjah231 3.0Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ New York University222 4.3Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Manchester206 4.2Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Nottingham202 5.5High yield
๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฌ Nanyang Technological University197 10.2High yield
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Saveetha University169 5.2Standard
King Saud University165 3.2Standard
Cairo University152 3.6Standard
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‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ United States 2,132
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 1,985
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 1,386
SA 1,085
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 846
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 830
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ India 806
AE 705

Anchor partner institutions

United Arab Emirates University 474
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals 307
University of Sharjah 231
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ New York University 222
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Manchester 206
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Nottingham 202
๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฌ Nanyang Technological University 197
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Saveetha University 169

The network spans 77 countries and 1,037 universities, but the top two carry about 42% 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‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Monash University Australia · world top-7

Monash University is top-215 globally in Physical Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Engineering.

Funding route: the Human Frontier Science Program or a Belmont Forum collaborative-research action

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

Yale University is top-401 globally in Physical Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Engineering.

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-163 globally in Physical Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Engineering.

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

๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ญ University of Zurich Switzerland · world top-23

University of Zurich is top-475 globally in Physical Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Engineering.

Funding route: Horizon Europe (associated-country participation) or bilateral Royal Society / DFG / ANR schemes

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.

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular BiologyAgricultural and Biological SciencesComputer Science

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‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Case Western Reserve UniversityUnited States
University of TartuEE
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Ruhr University BochumGermany
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University at Buffalo, State University of New YorkUnited States
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Swinburne University of TechnologyAustralia
Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesTopological and Geometric Data AnalysisStochastic Gradient Optimization TechniquesData Analysis with R

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 Monash University 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 University of Nottingham tie into a consortium concept in Physical Sciences & Engineering.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the influence gap and the social 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 Khalifa University of Science and Technology.

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.