Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Tampere University (Finland), 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 Europe · 417 universities benchmarked
21,291
co-authored works, 5 years
1,003
partner universities
79
partner countries
678
sustained deep ties
2.85
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
  • Nursing is the standout field. Ranked #159 in the world for connected research, with Computer Science #209, Psychology #271 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on diversity and international. Tampere University sits in the 80th percentile for diversity and the 75th for international: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 97 of 107 partners (90%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Influence is the softest pillar. At the 49th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Life Sciences is the at-risk domain. World #954 for connected research, far behind the rest of the portfolio: a real gap, not a crown jewel.
  • Network concentration. The top two partner countries (Finland and United States) carry about 57% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win HKU. World top-1. University of Hong Kong is top-94 globally in Social Sciences. Route: Horizon Europe (associated-country participation) or bilateral Royal Society / DFG / ANR schemes.
  • Win CUHK. World top-3. Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-130 globally in Social Sciences. Route: Horizon Europe (associated-country participation) or bilateral Royal Society / DFG / ANR schemes.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. Karolinska Institutet returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 6.2). 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.

485
h-index of the joint research base
3.0M
citations to co-authored work
2.85
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
21,291
co-authored works, 2021-2025
70
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.

Influence49th pctReach63rd pctDiversity80th pctSustained64th pctImpact67th pctInternational75th pctBrokerage51st pct

Tampere University is strongest on diversity (80th percentile), international (75th) and impact (67th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 97 of 107 partners (90%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Influence (49th 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% weight49th pct+10.8
Impact18% weight67th pct+12.1
Sustained18% weight64th pct+11.5
Reach16% weight63rd pct+10.1
Diversity16% weight80th pct+12.8
International10% weight75th pct+7.5

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#1000Nursing159Computer Sci.209Psychology271Biochem. & Mol. Biology284Engineering292Health Professions308
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

Tampere University's strongest connected fields are Nursing #159, Computer Science #209, Psychology #271. The portfolio leans on social sciences; Life Sciences, at world #954 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 #594 for connected research
50/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Helsinki1,085
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Turku552
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Easternโ€ฆ505
๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ช Karolinska Institutet385
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Oulu376
Life Sciences
World #954 for connected research
20/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Helsinki422
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Turku278
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Easternโ€ฆ187
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Oulu161
๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ช Karolinska Institutet153
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #592 for connected research
50/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Helsinki552
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ Aalto University465
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Jyvรคskyโ€ฆ219
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Easternโ€ฆ209
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Oulu195
Social Sciences
World #312 for connected research
74/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Helsinki794
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Turku407
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Jyvรคskyโ€ฆ348
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Easternโ€ฆ274
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Oulu156
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 HelsUniversity of TurkUCLUniversity of Goth
High yieldStandardLow yield

Karolinska Institutet returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 6.2): a consortium waiting to happen. Duke University, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.3: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Helsinki2,553 3.2Standard
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Turku1,310 3.6Standard
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Eastern Finland1,044 3.5Standard
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Oulu854 4.5Standard
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Jyvรคskylรค783 3.3Standard
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ Aalto University641 3.1Standard
๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ช Karolinska Institutet545 6.2High yield
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ University of Copenhagen252 4.8Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University College London243 7.9High yield
๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ช University of Gothenburg227 3.1Standard
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‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ Finland 7,185
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ United States 2,874
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 2,461
๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ช Sweden 1,564
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 1,145
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 896
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡น Italy 776
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 745

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Helsinki 2,553
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Turku 1,310
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Eastern Finland 1,044
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Oulu 854
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ University of Jyvรคskylรค 783
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ Aalto University 641
๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ช Karolinska Institutet 545
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ University of Copenhagen 252

The network spans 79 countries and 1,003 universities, but the top two carry about 57% 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 University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-1

University of Hong Kong is top-94 globally in Social 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

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

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

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: 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.

Tampere University HospitalHatanpรครค HospitalFinnish Social Science Data Archive
Social SciencesMedicinePsychologyBiochemistry, 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.

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Dartmouth CollegeUnited States
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of New MexicoUnited States
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Colorado Anschutz Medical CampusUnited States
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of South CarolinaUnited States
๐Ÿ‡ณ๐Ÿ‡ฟ University of CanterburyNew Zealand
Research in Social SciencesCeliac Disease Research and ManagementAsthma and respiratory diseasesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentDigital Games and MediaGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

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 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 Karolinska Institutet tie into a consortium concept in Social Sciences.

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.

Your fact file

Claim the full fact file for Tampere 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 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.