Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for KTH Royal Institute of Technology (Sweden), a Gold-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.

● Gold standing · Research Collaboration Index
🌍 Europe · 417 universities benchmarked
30,037
co-authored works, 5 years
1,104
partner universities
78
partner countries
878
sustained deep ties
2.89
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
  • Engineering is the standout field. Ranked #22 in the world for connected research, with Materials Science #33, Chemical Engineering #60 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on international and sustained. KTH Royal Institute of Technology sits in the 97th percentile for international and the 85th for sustained: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 192 of 217 partners (89%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Impact is the softest pillar. At the 69th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Health & Medicine is the at-risk domain. World #919 for connected research, far behind the rest of the portfolio: a real gap, not a crown jewel.
  • Network concentration. The top two partner countries (Sweden and United States) carry about 50% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win NUS. World top-2. National University of Singapore is top-56 globally in Physical Sciences. Route: Horizon Europe (associated-country participation) or bilateral Royal Society / DFG / ANR schemes.
  • Win Monash University. World top-7. Monash University is top-215 globally in Physical Sciences. Route: Horizon Europe (associated-country participation) or bilateral Royal Society / DFG / ANR schemes.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. Stanford University returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 8.3). 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.

723
h-index of the joint research base
8.3M
citations to co-authored work
2.89
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
30,037
co-authored works, 2021-2025
76
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.

Influence74th pctReach83rd pctDiversity71st pctSustained85th pctImpact69th pctInternational97th pctBrokerage53rd pct

KTH Royal Institute of Technology is strongest on international (97th percentile), sustained (85th) and reach (83rd). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 192 of 217 partners (89%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Impact (69th 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 pillar’s weighted contribution; together they place the university in the Gold band worldwide.
Influence22% weight74th pct+16.3
Impact18% weight69th pct+12.4
Sustained18% weight85th pct+15.3
Reach16% weight83rd pct+13.3
Diversity16% weight71st pct+11.4
International10% weight97th pct+9.7

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#1000Engineering22Materials Science33Chemical Engineering60Earth & Planetary Scie…80Energy92Computer Sci.94
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

KTH Royal Institute of Technology's strongest connected fields are Engineering #22, Materials Science #33, Chemical Engineering #60. The portfolio leans on physical sciences & engineering; Health & Medicine, at world #919 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 #919 for connected research
23/100
Top collaboration partners
🇸🇪 Karolinska Institutet632
🇸🇪 Linköping University316
🇸🇪 Chalmers University o…299
🇸🇪 University of Gothenb…282
🇸🇪 Uppsala University190
Life Sciences
World #822 for connected research
31/100
Top collaboration partners
🇸🇪 Karolinska Institutet540
🇸🇪 Stockholm University404
🇸🇪 Chalmers University o…275
🇸🇪 Linköping University266
🇸🇪 Uppsala University194
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #190 for connected research
84/100
Top collaboration partners
🇸🇪 Stockholm University3,863
🇸🇪 Uppsala University1,410
🇸🇪 Chalmers University o…1,318
🇸🇪 Linköping University1,114
🇫🇷 Université Paris-Sacl…858
Social Sciences
World #737 for connected research
38/100
Top collaboration partners
🇬🇧 University of Cambrid…238
🇬🇧 UCL230
🇸🇪 Stockholm University225
🇬🇧 Imperial College Lond…224
🇬🇧 Loughborough Universi…217
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 yieldStockholm UniversiChalmers UniversitKarolinska InstituUCL
High yieldStandardLow yield

Stanford University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 8.3): a consortium waiting to happen. Karolinska Institutet, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.8: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
🇸🇪 Stockholm University2,838 4.1Standard
🇸🇪 Chalmers University of Technology1,720 2.9Standard
🇸🇪 Linköping University1,594 3.1Standard
🇸🇪 Karolinska Institutet1,357 2.8Standard
🇸🇪 Uppsala University1,207 3.2Standard
🇸🇪 Lund University665 3.8Standard
🇸🇪 University of Gothenburg594 3.5Standard
🇫🇷 Université Paris-Saclay401 5.0Standard
🇨🇳 Zhejiang University346 2.9Standard
🇫🇷 Sorbonne Université339 4.2Standard
Source: institution-to-institution co-authorship ledger + field-weighted citation impact

Visualisation 4

Your global reach, and where it thins out

Top partner countries

🇸🇪 Sweden 10,496
🇺🇸 United States 5,431
🇨🇳 China 4,645
🇬🇧 United Kingdom 3,111
🇫🇷 France 2,764
🇩🇪 Germany 2,571
🇮🇹 Italy 1,515
🇪🇸 Spain 1,127

Anchor partner institutions

🇸🇪 Stockholm University 2,838
🇸🇪 Chalmers University of Technology 1,720
🇸🇪 Linköping University 1,594
🇸🇪 Karolinska Institutet 1,357
🇸🇪 Uppsala University 1,207
🇸🇪 Lund University 665
🇸🇪 University of Gothenburg 594
🇫🇷 Université Paris-Saclay 401

The network spans 78 countries and 1,104 universities, but the top two carry about 50% 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.

In Engineering, the single strongest partnership is 🇸🇪 Chalmers University of Technology, with 428 joint works: the natural anchor for a flagship consortium.
Source: co-authorship by partner-institution country, 2021–2025

Visualisation 5

The research funding behind the network

€300M608 projects
Horizon EuropeHorizon 2020

€300M across 608 funded projects from the European Commission, split €133M Horizon Europe and €167M Horizon 2020, every project traceable to the funder's own record (CORDIS). The fact file adds the ERC and the 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 · verified

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.

🇸🇬 National University of Singapore Singapore · world top-2

National University of Singapore is top-56 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

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

🇦🇺 The University of Queensland Australia · world top-12

The University of Queensland is top-199 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

🇸🇬 Nanyang Technological University Singapore · world top-14

Nanyang Technological University is top-58 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.

Wallenberg Wood Science CenterBolin Centre for Climate ResearchNational Bioinformatics Infrastructure SwedenSwedish National Data ServiceNational Microscopy InfrastructureSwedish Biodiversity Data InfrastructureDigital Futures
EngineeringPhysics and Astronomy

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.

🇩🇪 University of CologneGermany
🇫🇮 Aalto UniversityFinland
🇨🇳 University of Science and Technology of ChinaChina
🇺🇸 University of Colorado BoulderUnited States
🇩🇪 Freie Universität BerlinGermany

Signature joint research

The most-cited work produced with partners, each verifiable.

Photonic and Optical DevicesParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics

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 NUS and a Middle East hub 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 Stanford University tie into a consortium concept in Physical Sciences & Engineering.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the impact gap and the health & medicine weakness; set a diversification target for the long tail; and secure an editorial feature in the reputation-survey window.

Subject Award spotlight

Celebrating your significant contributions

We have identified the partnerships below as candidates for the Subject Awards, for a significant contribution to connected research. Each is anchored to a real, cited joint paper, with the lead author taken from that paper's own authorship record.

Engineering · candidate
with 🇸🇪 Chalmers University of Technology
Lead author under editorial review

Technology Roadmap for Flexible Sensors

2023 · 1,282 citations

Their most-cited joint work, on advanced sensor and energy harvesting materials, has been cited 1,282 times and anchors a 426-paper partnership in engineering.

See the Engineering candidates →
These are candidates, not winners. The full slate is undergoing complete review by our editorial team ahead of the awards, and the Subject Awards are exclusive to partner universities.

Your fact file

Claim the full fact file for KTH Royal Institute of 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.