Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for University of Central Florida (United States), 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 North America · 251 universities benchmarked
24,049
co-authored works, 5 years
1,058
partner universities
76
partner countries
744
sustained deep ties
2.24
collaboration impact (FWCI)
89%
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
  • Business, Management & Accounting is the standout field. Ranked #226 in the world for connected research, with Computer Science #250, Social Sciences #278 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on reach and sustained. University of Central Florida sits in the 72nd percentile for reach and the 70th for sustained: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 131 of 147 partners (89%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Impact is the softest pillar. At the 36th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Life Sciences is the at-risk domain. World #734 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 Italy) carry about 79% 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: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Win CUHK. World top-3. Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-150 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 7.7). 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.

576
h-index of the joint research base
4.5M
citations to co-authored work
2.24
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
24,049
co-authored works, 2021-2025
46
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.

Influence58th pctReach72nd pctDiversity57th pctSustained70th pctImpact36th pctInternational51st pctBrokerage40th pct

University of Central Florida is strongest on reach (72nd percentile), sustained (70th) and influence (58th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 131 of 147 partners (89%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Impact (36th 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% weight58th pct+12.8
Impact18% weight36th pct+6.5
Sustained18% weight70th pct+12.6
Reach16% weight72nd pct+11.5
Diversity16% weight57th pct+9.1
International10% weight51st pct+5.1

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#1000Business, Management &โ€ฆ226Computer Sci.250Social Sciences278Health Professions312Engineering352Physics & Astronomy381
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

University of Central Florida's strongest connected fields are Business, Management & Accounting #226, Computer Science #250, Social Sciences #278. The portfolio leans on physical sciences & engineering; Life Sciences, at world #734 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 #516 for connected research
57/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Florida College1,407
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida349
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of South Fโ€ฆ198
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Miami166
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Brown University161
Life Sciences
World #734 for connected research
39/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Florida College141
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida99
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The University of Texโ€ฆ50
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University48
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of South Fโ€ฆ46
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #372 for connected research
69/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida212
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Arizona192
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Caltech158
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ MIT154
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins Universโ€ฆ133
Social Sciences
World #395 for connected research
67/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Florida College172
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida100
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of South Fโ€ฆ91
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Florida State Universโ€ฆ68
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Arizona State Universโ€ฆ64
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 yieldFlorida CollegeUniversity of SienHarvard University
High yieldStandardLow yield

Harvard University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 7.7): a consortium waiting to happen. Florida College, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 1.5: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Florida College1,609 1.5Low yield
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡น University of Siena1,300 0.0Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida657 2.5Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of South Florida350 2.3Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins University265 5.4Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Arizona225 4.1Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University217 7.7High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Brown University216 2.2Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Miami214 2.5Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Florida State University205 4.0Standard
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 15,654
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡น Italy 1,825
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 1,310
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 995
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 895
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 639
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 499
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 432

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Florida College 1,609
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡น University of Siena 1,300
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida 657
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of South Florida 350
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins University 265
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Arizona 225
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University 217
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Brown University 216

The network spans 76 countries and 1,058 universities, but the top two carry about 79% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Africa 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‡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 your strongest field.

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

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 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

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.

Florida Space Grant Consortium
Physics and AstronomyEngineeringPsychology

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.

American University of BeirutLB
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Philipps University of MarburgGermany
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Keele UniversityUnited Kingdom
๐Ÿ‡ฏ๐Ÿ‡ต Hokkaido UniversityJapan
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of KansasUnited States
Advanced Fiber Laser TechnologiesPhotonic and Optical DevicesSemiconductor Lasers and Optical DevicesHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyLaser-Matter Interactions and ApplicationsOptical Network Technologies

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 Africa 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 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 Central Florida.

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.