Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Linköping University (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
24,309
co-authored works, 5 years
1,101
partner universities
79
partner countries
816
sustained deep ties
3.11
collaboration impact (FWCI)
90%
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
  • Materials Science is the standout field. Ranked #55 in the world for connected research, with Engineering #81 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on international and reach. Linköping University sits in the 85th percentile for international and the 82nd for reach: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 104 of 115 partners (90%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Influence is the softest pillar. At the 64th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Life Sciences is the at-risk domain. World #709 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 61% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win HKU. World top-1. University of Hong Kong is top-146 globally in Health Sciences. Route: Horizon Europe (associated-country participation) or bilateral Royal Society / DFG / ANR schemes.
  • Win NUS. World top-2. National University of Singapore is top-85 globally in Health Sciences. Route: Horizon Europe (associated-country participation) or bilateral Royal Society / DFG / ANR schemes.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. King's College London returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 8.6). 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.

649
h-index of the joint research base
6.2M
citations to co-authored work
3.11
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
24,309
co-authored works, 2021-2025
77
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.

Influence64th pctReach82nd pctDiversity80th pctSustained78th pctImpact79th pctInternational85th pctBrokerage49th pct

Linköping University is strongest on international (85th percentile), reach (82nd) and diversity (80th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 104 of 115 partners (90%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Influence (64th 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% weight64th pct+14.1
Impact18% weight79th pct+14.2
Sustained18% weight78th pct+14.0
Reach16% weight82nd pct+13.1
Diversity16% weight80th pct+12.8
International10% weight85th pct+8.5

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#1000Materials Science55Engineering81
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

Linköping University's strongest connected fields are Materials Science #55, Engineering #81. The portfolio leans on health & medicine; Life Sciences, at world #709 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 #429 for connected research
64/100
Top collaboration partners
🇸🇪 Karolinska Institutet1,805
🇸🇪 Lund University1,101
🇸🇪 University of Gothenb…1,018
🇸🇪 Uppsala University877
🇸🇪 Umeå University570
Life Sciences
World #709 for connected research
41/100
Top collaboration partners
🇸🇪 Karolinska Institutet412
🇸🇪 University of Gothenb…273
🇸🇪 KTH Royal Institute o…266
🇸🇪 Chalmers University o…242
🇸🇪 Lund University240
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #609 for connected research
49/100
Top collaboration partners
🇸🇪 KTH Royal Institute o…1,114
🇸🇪 Chalmers University o…1,015
🇸🇪 Uppsala University367
🇸🇪 Lund University272
🇸🇪 Stockholm University214
Social Sciences
World #460 for connected research
62/100
Top collaboration partners
🇸🇪 Karolinska Institutet345
🇸🇪 Stockholm University263
🇸🇪 Uppsala University214
🇸🇪 University of Gothenb…179
🇸🇪 Lund University175
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 yieldKarolinska InstituLund UniversityUppsala UniversityUniversity of Cope
High yieldStandardLow yield

King's College London returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 8.6): a consortium waiting to happen. Karolinska Institutet, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 3.2: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
🇸🇪 Karolinska Institutet2,676 3.2Low yield
🇸🇪 Lund University1,712 2.8Low yield
🇸🇪 Uppsala University1,649 2.5Low yield
🇸🇪 KTH Royal Institute of Technology1,594 3.1Low yield
🇸🇪 University of Gothenburg1,572 3.0Low yield
🇸🇪 Chalmers University of Technology1,462 3.0Low yield
🇸🇪 Umeå University787 2.6Low yield
🇸🇪 Stockholm University575 4.6Standard
🇬🇧 University College London289 4.7Standard
🇳🇴 University of Oslo262 3.8Standard
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 12,216
🇺🇸 United States 3,644
🇬🇧 United Kingdom 2,664
🇨🇳 China 2,264
🇩🇪 Germany 1,760
🇮🇹 Italy 1,220
🇫🇷 France 1,129
🇦🇺 Australia 1,113

Anchor partner institutions

🇸🇪 Karolinska Institutet 2,676
🇸🇪 Lund University 1,712
🇸🇪 Uppsala University 1,649
🇸🇪 KTH Royal Institute of Technology 1,594
🇸🇪 University of Gothenburg 1,572
🇸🇪 Chalmers University of Technology 1,462
🇸🇪 Umeå University 787
🇸🇪 Stockholm University 575

The network spans 79 countries and 1,101 universities, but the top two carry about 61% 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.

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

Visualisation 5

The research funding behind the network

€108M222 projects
Horizon EuropeHorizon 2020

€108M across 222 funded projects from the European Commission, split €59M Horizon Europe and €49M 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.

🇭🇰 University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-1

University of Hong Kong is top-146 globally in Health Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Materials Science.

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

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

National University of Singapore is top-85 globally in Health Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Materials Science.

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-538 globally in Health Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Materials Science.

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

🇺🇸 Yale University United States · world top-17

Yale University is top-21 globally in Health Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Materials Science.

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 CenterLinköping University HospitalNational Bioinformatics Infrastructure SwedenAIDA Data HubSanta Anna IT Research Institute
EngineeringMaterials SciencePhysics 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.

🇺🇸 Baylor College of MedicineUnited States
🇮🇹 University of PisaItaly
🇦🇺 Western Sydney UniversityAustralia
🇺🇸 North Carolina State UniversityUnited States
🇳🇿 University of OtagoNew Zealand
Semiconductor materials and devicesConducting polymers and applicationsMetal and Thin Film MechanicsOrganic Electronics and PhotovoltaicsSilicon Carbide Semiconductor TechnologiesGaN-based semiconductor devices and materials

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 HKU 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 King's College London tie into a consortium concept in Health & Medicine.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the influence gap and the life sciences 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.

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

Developing fibrillated cellulose as a sustainable technological material

2021 · 1,604 citations

Their most-cited joint work, on advanced cellulose research studies, has been cited 1,604 times and anchors a 443-paper partnership in materials science.

See the Materials Science 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 Linköping University.

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 rivals.

Partner fact file · locked

Unlocked for partners. Confirm before 12:00, 22 July 2026 to be included at the 1 September launch.

Claim your fact file →

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 rivals.

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 rivals with Recognition, five with Partnership, up to ten with Flagship.

Your research, in front of 172,000 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

172,000
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 1 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.