Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Technical University of Denmark (Denmark), 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.

โ— Gold standing · Research Collaboration Index
๐ŸŒ Europe · 417 universities benchmarked
41,254
co-authored works, 5 years
1,107
partner universities
77
partner countries
895
sustained deep ties
2.68
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
  • Chemical Engineering is the standout field. Ranked #17 in the world for connected research, with Energy #34, Engineering #44 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on international and sustained. Technical University of Denmark sits in the 93rd percentile for international and the 86th for sustained: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 128 of 140 partners (92%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Impact is the softest pillar. At the 58th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Social Sciences is the at-risk domain. World #786 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 Denmark) carry about 40% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win HKU. World top-1. University of Hong Kong is top-127 globally in Physical 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-150 globally in Physical Sciences. Route: Horizon Europe (associated-country participation) or bilateral Royal Society / DFG / ANR schemes.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. Harvard 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.

983
h-index of the joint research base
11.9M
citations to co-authored work
2.68
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
41,254
co-authored works, 2021-2025
71
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 pctReach84th pctDiversity64th pctSustained86th pctImpact58th pctInternational93rd pctBrokerage63rd pct

Technical University of Denmark is strongest on international (93rd percentile), sustained (86th) and reach (84th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 128 of 140 partners (92%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Impact (58th 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 Gold band worldwide.
Influence22% weight74th pct+16.3
Impact18% weight58th pct+10.4
Sustained18% weight86th pct+15.5
Reach16% weight84th pct+13.4
Diversity16% weight64th pct+10.2
International10% weight93rd pct+9.3

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#1000Chemical Engineering17Energy34Engineering44Materials Science72Computer Sci.111Biochem. & Mol. Biology124
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

Technical University of Denmark's strongest connected fields are Chemical Engineering #17, Energy #34, Engineering #44. The portfolio leans on physical sciences & engineering; Social Sciences, at world #786 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 #766 for connected research
36/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ University of Copenhaโ€ฆ705
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Aarhus University163
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ University of Southerโ€ฆ98
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Aalborg University93
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University92
Life Sciences
World #341 for connected research
72/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ University of Copenhaโ€ฆ835
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ217
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Aarhus University184
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University124
๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ช Lund University123
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #107 for connected research
91/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ University of Copenhaโ€ฆ1,267
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Aarhus University747
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Aalborg University523
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท Universitรฉ Paris-Saclโ€ฆ439
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ญ ร‰cole Polytechnique Fโ€ฆ428
Social Sciences
World #786 for connected research
34/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ University of Copenhaโ€ฆ156
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Aalborg University85
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Aarhus University83
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ University of Southerโ€ฆ75
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Copenhagen Business Sโ€ฆ61
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 CopeAarhus UniversityUniversity of SoutUCL
High yieldStandardLow yield

Harvard University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 8.3): a consortium waiting to happen. University of Copenhagen, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 3.5: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ University of Copenhagen2,407 3.5Low yield
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Aarhus University863 3.1Low yield
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Aalborg University639 2.7Low yield
๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ช Lund University518 3.4Low yield
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ University of Southern Denmark467 2.6Low yield
๐Ÿ‡ณ๐Ÿ‡ด Norwegian University of Science and Technology427 4.2Standard
๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ช Chalmers University of Technology414 4.8Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University352 8.3High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Massachusetts Institute of Technology330 5.8Standard
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท Universitรฉ Paris-Saclay327 6.6Standard
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 6,936
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Denmark 4,663
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 4,277
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 3,841
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 2,886
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 2,749
๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ช Sweden 2,088
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡น Italy 1,673

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ University of Copenhagen 2,407
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Aarhus University 863
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Aalborg University 639
๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ช Lund University 518
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ฐ University of Southern Denmark 467
๐Ÿ‡ณ๐Ÿ‡ด Norwegian University of Science and Technology 427
๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ช Chalmers University of Technology 414
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University 352

The network spans 77 countries and 1,107 universities, but the top two carry about 40% 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 Chemical Engineering, the single strongest partnership is ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ช Lund University, with 16 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

โ‚ฌ591M951 projects
Horizon EuropeHorizon 2020

€591M across 951 funded projects from the European Commission, split €301M Horizon Europe and €290M 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.

๐Ÿ‡ญ๐Ÿ‡ฐ University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-1

University of Hong Kong is top-127 globally in Physical Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Chemical Engineering.

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-150 globally in Physical Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Chemical Engineering.

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

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 Chemical Engineering.

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

๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง King's College London United Kingdom · world top-10

King's College London is top-581 globally in Physical Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Chemical 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.

Nordic Laboratory for Luminescence DatingJj X-RayDTU Space
EngineeringBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular BiologyPhysics and AstronomyEnvironmental 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‡ฟ๐Ÿ‡ฆ University of JohannesburgSouth Africa
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of East AngliaUnited Kingdom
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡น University of Milano-BicoccaItaly
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ University of Newcastle AustraliaAustralia
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of AberdeenUnited Kingdom

Signature joint research

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

Photonic and Optical DevicesOptical Network TechnologiesMicrobial Metabolic Engineering and BioproductionWind Energy Research and DevelopmentAdvanced Fiber Laser TechnologiesMarine and fisheries research

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 Harvard University tie into a consortium concept in Physical Sciences & Engineering.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the impact gap and the social 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.

Chemical Engineering · candidate
with ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ช Lund University
★ Lauge Sven Thorsen

High pressure oxidation of NH<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" altimg="si3.svg"><mml:msub><mml:mrow/><mml:mn>3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math>/<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" altimg="si9.svg"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math>-heptane mixtures

2023 · 83 citations

Their most-cited joint work, on advanced combustion engine technologies, has been cited 83 times and anchors a 16-paper partnership in chemical engineering.

See the Chemical 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 Technical University of Denmark.

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.