Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Mahidol University (Thailand), 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.

β—‹ Silver standing · Research Collaboration Index
🌍 Asia-Pacific · 391 universities benchmarked
32,979
co-authored works, 5 years
1,080
partner universities
78
partner countries
815
sustained deep ties
1.85
collaboration impact (FWCI)
93%
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
  • Strong on international and influence. Mahidol University sits in the 85th percentile for international and the 80th for influence: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 93 of 100 partners (93%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Impact is the softest pillar. At the 21st percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Physical Sciences & Engineering is the at-risk domain. World #742 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 Thailand) carry about 54% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win University of California San Diego. World top-18. University of California San Diego is top-51 globally in Health Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Win University of British Columbia. World top-19. University of British Columbia is top-38 globally in Health Sciences. Route: the Human Frontier Science Program or a Belmont Forum collaborative-research action.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. CUHK returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 5.9). 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.

472
h-index of the joint research base
4.3M
citations to co-authored work
1.85
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
32,979
co-authored works, 2021-2025
63
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.

Influence80th pctReach77th pctDiversity71st pctSustained78th pctImpact21st pctInternational85th pctBrokerage91st pct

Mahidol University is strongest on international (85th percentile), influence (80th) and sustained (78th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 93 of 100 partners (93%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Impact (21st 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.

InflSustReacDiveInteEach block is a pillar’s weighted contribution; together they place the university in the Silver band worldwide.
Influence22% weight80th pct+17.6
Impact18% weight21st pct+3.8
Sustained18% weight78th pct+14.0
Reach16% weight77th pct+12.3
Diversity16% weight71st pct+11.4
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.

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 #86 for connected research
93/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ University of Oxford2,583
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Chulalongkorn Univers…1,098
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Chiang Mai University755
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Khon Kaen University535
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Prince of Songkla Uni…393
Life Sciences
World #175 for connected research
85/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ University of Oxford895
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Chulalongkorn Univers…649
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Kasetsart University297
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Chiang Mai University257
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Khon Kaen University173
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #742 for connected research
38/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Chulalongkorn Univers…519
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ University of Oxford324
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Kasetsart University251
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Chiang Mai University188
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Khon Kaen University121
Social Sciences
World #532 for connected research
56/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ University of Oxford234
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Chulalongkorn Univers…156
πŸ‡ΏπŸ‡¦ University of the Fre…84
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ London School of Hygi…62
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Chiang Mai University62
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 yieldUniversity of OxfoChulalongkorn UnivPrince of Songkla NUS
High yieldStandardLow yield

CUHK returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 5.9): a consortium waiting to happen. University of Oxford, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 1.9: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ University of Oxford5,549 1.9Low yield
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Chulalongkorn University3,042 1.5Low yield
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Chiang Mai University1,563 1.4Low yield
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Khon Kaen University1,132 1.5Low yield
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Kasetsart University1,027 1.6Low yield
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Prince of Songkla University841 1.3Low yield
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Harvard University598 3.2Standard
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine587 2.4Low yield
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί The University of Melbourne496 2.8Standard
πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡¬ National University of Singapore428 5.2Standard
Source: institution-to-institution co-authorship ledger + field-weighted citation impact

Visualisation 4

Your global reach, and where it thins out

Top partner countries

πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ United Kingdom 9,598
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Thailand 7,605
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ United States 6,742
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί Australia 2,244
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China 1,838
πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅ Japan 1,643
πŸ‡«πŸ‡· France 1,259
πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ Germany 1,062

Anchor partner institutions

πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ University of Oxford 5,549
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Chulalongkorn University 3,042
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Chiang Mai University 1,563
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Khon Kaen University 1,132
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Kasetsart University 1,027
πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡­ Prince of Songkla University 841
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Harvard University 598
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine 587

The network spans 78 countries and 1,080 universities, but the top two carry about 54% 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

€1M12 projects
Horizon EuropeHorizon 2020

€1M across 12 funded projects from the European Commission, split €1M Horizon Europe and €0M 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.

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ University of California San Diego United States · world top-18

University of California San Diego is top-51 globally in Health 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

πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦ University of British Columbia Canada · world top-19

University of British Columbia is top-38 globally in Health Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in your strongest field.

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

πŸ‡§πŸ‡ͺ KU Leuven Belgium · world top-21

KU Leuven is top-72 globally in Health Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in your strongest field.

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

πŸ‡¨πŸ‡­ University of Zurich Switzerland · world top-23

University of Zurich is top-114 globally in Health Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in your strongest field.

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.

Siriraj HospitalPhramongkutklao HospitalPriest HospitalMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research UnitRamathibodi HospitalIRL HealthDEEP
MedicineImmunology and MicrobiologyBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology

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.

Khalifa University of Science and TechnologyAE
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ University at Buffalo, State University of New YorkUnited States
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί Swinburne University of TechnologyAustralia
πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺ Chalmers University of TechnologySweden
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ University of MissouriUnited States
Malaria Research and ControlMosquito-borne diseases and controlParasites and Host InteractionsHemoglobinopathies and Related DisordersGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesVector-borne infectious diseases

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 University of California San Diego 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 CUHK tie into a consortium concept in Health & Medicine.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the impact gap and the physical sciences & engineering 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 Mahidol 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.