Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for The University of Texas at Dallas (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
13,178
co-authored works, 5 years
941
partner universities
68
partner countries
563
sustained deep ties
2.79
collaboration impact (FWCI)
83%
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 impact and international. The University of Texas at Dallas sits in the 64th percentile for impact and the 58th for international: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 123 of 148 partners (83%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Diversity is the softest pillar. At the 25th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Health & Medicine is the at-risk domain. World #932 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 81% 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 7.0). 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.

532
h-index of the joint research base
3.6M
citations to co-authored work
2.79
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
13,178
co-authored works, 2021-2025
43
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.

Influence47th pctReach52nd pctDiversity25th pctSustained51st pctImpact64th pctInternational58th pctBrokerage4th pct

The University of Texas at Dallas is strongest on impact (64th percentile), international (58th) and reach (52nd). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 123 of 148 partners (83%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Diversity (25th 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% weight47th pct+10.3
Impact18% weight64th pct+11.5
Sustained18% weight51st pct+9.2
Reach16% weight52nd pct+8.3
Diversity16% weight25th pct+4.0
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.

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 #932 for connected research
22/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University70
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ48
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Texas A&M University46
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins Universโ€ฆ44
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida40
Life Sciences
World #893 for connected research
25/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University119
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida59
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Peking University58
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Washington Universityโ€ฆ57
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Chinese Academy of Meโ€ฆ54
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #601 for connected research
50/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The University of Texโ€ฆ347
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan340
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท Universitรฉ Paris-Saclโ€ฆ335
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University324
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง UCL319
Social Sciences
World #798 for connected research
33/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ญ๐Ÿ‡ฐ CUHK58
๐Ÿ‡ญ๐Ÿ‡ฐ HKU43
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ New York University39
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Pennsylvania State Unโ€ฆ38
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan35
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 UniversityUniversity of MichTexas A&M UniversiSouthern Methodist
High yieldStandardLow yield

Harvard University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 7.0): a consortium waiting to happen. Texas A&M University, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.1: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University241 7.0High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan173 7.2High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The University of Texas at Austin156 3.5Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, Los Angeles154 2.4Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Texas A&M University154 2.1Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California San Diego139 4.8High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, Berkeley139 7.2High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins University122 5.4High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida120 5.0High yield
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Tsinghua University119 4.6High 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 7,653
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 2,906
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 679
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 438
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 419
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท South Korea 404
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 300
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 293

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University 241
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan 173
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The University of Texas at Austin 156
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, Los Angeles 154
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Texas A&M University 154
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California San Diego 139
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, Berkeley 139
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins University 122

The network spans 68 countries and 941 universities, but the top two carry about 81% 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.

Physics and AstronomyEngineeringComputer 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‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of LouisvilleUnited States
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Bangor UniversityUnited Kingdom
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Technische Universitรคt DarmstadtGermany
National University of Sciences and TechnologyPK
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ University of Science and Technology BeijingChina
Particle physics theoretical and experimental studiesHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsSemiconductor materials and devicesQuantum Chromodynamics and Particle InteractionsSpeech and Audio Processing

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 health & medicine 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 Dallas.

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.