Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for The University of Texas at Arlington (United States), ranked in the global index.  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—‡ Ranked in the Research Collaboration Index
๐ŸŒ North America · 251 universities benchmarked
12,890
co-authored works, 5 years
960
partner universities
72
partner countries
560
sustained deep ties
2.38
collaboration impact (FWCI)
84%
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
  • Physics & Astronomy is the standout field. Ranked #298 in the world for connected research, with Computer Science #369, Engineering #488 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on international and reach. The University of Texas at Arlington sits in the 58th percentile for international and the 55th for reach: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 151 of 179 partners (84%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Diversity is the softest pillar. At the 38th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Life Sciences is the at-risk domain. World #1,042 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 China) carry about 76% 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: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Win Monash University. World top-7. Monash University is top-215 globally in Physical Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. Harvard University returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 4.8). 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.

491
h-index of the joint research base
3.9M
citations to co-authored work
2.38
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
12,890
co-authored works, 2021-2025
41
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.

Influence44th pctReach55th pctDiversity38th pctSustained50th pctImpact42nd pctInternational58th pctBrokerage9th pct

The University of Texas at Arlington is strongest on international (58th percentile), reach (55th) and sustained (50th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 151 of 179 partners (84%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Diversity (38th 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 global ranked cohort.
Influence22% weight44th pct+9.7
Impact18% weight42nd pct+7.6
Sustained18% weight50th pct+9.0
Reach16% weight55th pct+8.8
Diversity16% weight38th pct+6.1
International10% weight58th pct+5.8

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#1000Physics & Astronomy298Computer Sci.369Engineering488Social Sciences537Business, Management &โ€ฆ558Earth & Planetary Scieโ€ฆ599
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

The University of Texas at Arlington's strongest connected fields are Physics & Astronomy #298, Computer Science #369, Engineering #488. The portfolio leans on physical sciences & engineering; Life Sciences, at world #1,042 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 #876 for connected research
27/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of North Tโ€ฆ87
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University56
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins Universโ€ฆ47
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ University of Alberta41
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The University of Texโ€ฆ41
Life Sciences
World #1042 for connected research
13/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Zhejiang University47
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Sun Yat-sen University44
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Fudan University43
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Central South Universโ€ฆ42
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Shanghai Jiao Tong Unโ€ฆ42
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #675 for connected research
44/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University656
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Michigan State Univerโ€ฆ585
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Adeโ€ฆ577
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The Ohio State Univerโ€ฆ561
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Humboldt-Universitรคt โ€ฆ550
Social Sciences
World #694 for connected research
42/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Texas A&M University64
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The University of Texโ€ฆ62
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Houston53
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of North Tโ€ฆ52
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Arizona State Universโ€ฆ46
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 yieldHarvard UniversityMITTexas A&M Universi
High yieldStandardLow yield

Harvard University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 4.8): a consortium waiting to happen. Texas A&M University, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 1.7: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University346 4.8High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Massachusetts Institute of Technology270 4.2High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, Berkeley243 3.4Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Pennsylvania State University209 3.5Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan204 4.0High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Texas A&M University198 1.7Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of North Texas195 1.9Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The Ohio State University193 3.9High yield
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช RWTH Aachen University192 3.6High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Georgia Institute of Technology192 3.7High yield
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 10,110
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 2,809
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 1,326
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 932
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 593
๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ‡ช Belgium 466
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 415
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 377

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University 346
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Massachusetts Institute of Technology 270
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, Berkeley 243
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Pennsylvania State University 209
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan 204
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Texas A&M University 198
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of North Texas 195
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The Ohio State University 193

The network spans 72 countries and 960 universities, but the top two carry about 76% 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 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‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฌ 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 your strongest field.

Funding route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant

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 your strongest field.

Funding route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant

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 your strongest field.

Funding route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant

๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ 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 your strongest field.

Funding route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant

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.

VA North Texas Health Care System
Physics and AstronomyEngineering

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.

Mansoura UniversityEG
๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡ธ Universidad de SalamancaSpain
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Xidian UniversityChina
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Guangzhou Medical UniversityChina
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท Universitรฉ d'OrlรฉansFrance
Particle physics theoretical and experimental studiesHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchParticle Detector Development and PerformanceQuantum Chromodynamics and Particle InteractionsNeutrino Physics ResearchPhotonic and Optical Devices

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

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the diversity 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 The University of Texas at Arlington.

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.