Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for University of Canberra (Australia), 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 Asia-Pacific · 391 universities benchmarked
11,805
co-authored works, 5 years
939
partner universities
76
partner countries
484
sustained deep ties
3.34
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
  • Health Professions is the standout field. Ranked #351 in the world for connected research, with Environmental Science #359, Engineering #383 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on impact and international. University of Canberra sits in the 86th percentile for impact and the 62nd for international: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 98 of 106 partners (93%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Sustained is the softest pillar. At the 39th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Life Sciences is the at-risk domain. World #1,101 for connected research, far behind the rest of the portfolio: a real gap, not a crown jewel.
  • Network concentration. The top two partner countries (Australia and United States) carry about 77% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win CUHK. World top-3. Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-130 globally in Social Sciences. Route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program.
  • Win University of California San Diego. World top-18. University of California San Diego is top-252 globally in Social Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. The University of Melbourne returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 6.4). 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.

311
h-index of the joint research base
1.2M
citations to co-authored work
3.34
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
11,805
co-authored works, 2021-2025
69
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 pctDiversity57th pctSustained39th pctImpact86th pctInternational62nd pctBrokerage70th pct

University of Canberra is strongest on impact (86th percentile), international (62nd) and diversity (57th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 98 of 106 partners (93%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Sustained (39th 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% weight47th pct+10.3
Impact18% weight86th pct+15.5
Sustained18% weight39th pct+7.0
Reach16% weight52nd pct+8.3
Diversity16% weight57th pct+9.1
International10% weight62nd pct+6.2

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#1000Health Professions351Environmental Sci.359Engineering383Decision Sciences389Social Sciences406Computer Sci.410
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

University of Canberra's strongest connected fields are Health Professions #351, Environmental Science #359, Engineering #383. The portfolio leans on social sciences; Life Sciences, at world #1,101 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 #800 for connected research
33/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australian National Uโ€ฆ294
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Sydโ€ฆ242
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ UNSW Sydney185
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Melโ€ฆ148
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Monash University131
Life Sciences
World #1101 for connected research
8/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ UNSW Sydney129
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australian National Uโ€ฆ84
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Sydโ€ฆ49
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Adeโ€ฆ41
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ University of Tasmania39
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #985 for connected research
18/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ UNSW Sydney2,073
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australian National Uโ€ฆ374
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Sydโ€ฆ149
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Melโ€ฆ135
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ University of Technolโ€ฆ127
Social Sciences
World #594 for connected research
50/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ UNSW Sydney575
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australian National Uโ€ฆ258
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Melโ€ฆ154
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Sydโ€ฆ145
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Macquarie University102
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 yieldUNSW SydneyAustralian NationaThe University of
High yieldStandardLow yield

The University of Melbourne returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 6.4): a consortium waiting to happen. Australian National University, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 3.7: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ UNSW Sydney2,549 3.8Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australian National University893 3.7Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Sydney494 4.9Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Melbourne410 6.4High yield
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Queensland291 4.8Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ University of Technology Sydney277 4.1Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Monash University273 6.0Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Deakin University257 4.2Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Griffith University250 4.7Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Queensland University of Technology193 3.7Standard
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‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 8,218
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ United States 995
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 811
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 776
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 305
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 285
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 284
๐Ÿ‡ณ๐Ÿ‡ฟ New Zealand 251

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ UNSW Sydney 2,549
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australian National University 893
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Sydney 494
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Melbourne 410
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Queensland 291
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ University of Technology Sydney 277
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Monash University 273
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Deakin University 257

The network spans 76 countries and 939 universities, but the top two carry about 77% 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 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: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program

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

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Duke University United States · world top-22

Duke University is top-140 globally in Social 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 Queen Mary University of London United Kingdom · world top-25

Queen Mary University of London is top-352 globally in Social 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

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.

Canberra HospitalCalvary HospitalAustralian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science
Social SciencesHealth ProfessionsEnvironmental ScienceMedicine

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.

Universidad de Buenos AiresAR
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ California University of PennsylvaniaUnited States
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Capital Medical UniversityChina
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡น University of Modena and Reggio EmiliaItaly
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Clemson UniversityUnited States
Political and Economic history of UK and USHealthcare Systems and ChallengesFish Ecology and Management StudiesSports Performance and TrainingSports injuries and preventionWildlife Ecology and Conservation

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 CUHK 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 The University of Melbourne tie into a consortium concept in Social Sciences.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the sustained 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 University of Canberra.

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.