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

β—‡ Ranked in the Research Collaboration Index
🌍 Asia-Pacific · 391 universities benchmarked
14,556
co-authored works, 5 years
849
partner universities
74
partner countries
429
sustained deep ties
2.45
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
  • Business, Management & Accounting is the standout field. Ranked #438 in the world for connected research, with Economics, Econometrics & Finance #463, Environmental Science #501 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on international and impact. University of Dhaka sits in the 60th percentile for international and the 46th for impact: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 86 of 93 partners (92%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Influence is the softest pillar. At the 17th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Physical Sciences & Engineering is the at-risk domain. World #663 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 United Kingdom) carry about 46% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win NUS. World top-2. National University of Singapore is top-115 globally in Social Sciences. Route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program.
  • 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.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. Qatar University returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 5.3). 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.

295
h-index of the joint research base
0.8M
citations to co-authored work
2.45
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
14,556
co-authored works, 2021-2025
53
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.

Influence17th pctReach34th pctDiversity46th pctSustained30th pctImpact46th pctInternational60th pctBrokerage68th pct

University of Dhaka is strongest on international (60th percentile), impact (46th) and diversity (46th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 86 of 93 partners (92%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Influence (17th 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 pillar’s weighted contribution; together they place the university in the global ranked cohort.
Influence22% weight17th pct+3.7
Impact18% weight46th pct+8.3
Sustained18% weight30th pct+5.4
Reach16% weight34th pct+5.4
Diversity16% weight46th pct+7.4
International10% weight60th pct+6.0

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 &…438Economics, Econometric…463Environmental Sci.501Nursing506Health Professions533Psychology627
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

University of Dhaka's strongest connected fields are Business, Management & Accounting #438, Economics, Econometrics & Finance #463, Environmental Science #501. The portfolio leans on social sciences; Physical Sciences & Engineering, at world #663 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 #655 for connected research
45/100
Top collaboration partners
Qatar University55
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί UNSW Sydney45
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ University of York29
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Johns Hopkins Univers…28
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί Deakin University27
Life Sciences
World #557 for connected research
53/100
Top collaboration partners
King Khalid University20
King Saud University15
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ University of Oxford15
πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Έ Universidade de Vigo15
Hasanuddin University15
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #663 for connected research
45/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅ Kyushu University102
King Saud University71
National University o…50
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ North Carolina State …46
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί Curtin University38
Social Sciences
World #423 for connected research
65/100
Top collaboration partners
Ural Federal Universi…56
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί UNSW Sydney48
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί Monash University37
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦ University of Alberta31
πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅ Kyushu University30
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 yieldKyushu UniversityUniversity of OxfoCurtin University
High yieldStandardLow yield

Qatar University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 5.3): a consortium waiting to happen. University of York, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 1.4: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅ Kyushu University136 3.9Standard
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ University of Oxford118 2.8Standard
National University of Malaysia111 3.8Standard
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί UNSW Sydney109 3.8Standard
King Saud University109 3.7Standard
Qatar University90 5.3High yield
King Khalid University89 6.0High yield
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί Monash University81 3.0Standard
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί The University of Queensland73 3.7Standard
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί University of Technology Sydney69 7.2High 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

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ United States 1,449
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ United Kingdom 946
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί Australia 905
SA 482
πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅ Japan 441
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China 347
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦ Canada 330
MY 320

Anchor partner institutions

πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅ Kyushu University 136
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ University of Oxford 118
National University of Malaysia 111
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί UNSW Sydney 109
King Saud University 109
Qatar University 90
King Khalid University 89
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί Monash University 81

The network spans 74 countries and 849 universities, but the top two carry about 46% 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.

πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡¬ National University of Singapore Singapore · world top-2

National University of Singapore is top-115 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

πŸ‡­πŸ‡° 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

πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡¬ Nanyang Technological University Singapore · world top-14

Nanyang Technological University is top-280 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

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Yale University United States · world top-17

Yale University is top-71 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

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.

Bangladesh Shishu (Children) Hospital & InstituteNational Institute of Traumatology & Orthopaedic RehabilitationCentre for the Rehabilitation of the ParalysedMedical College For Women and HospitalNational Institute of Textile Engineering and ResearchGreen Life Medical CollegeIbrahim Medical CollegeFaridpur Engineering College
NursingEngineeringSocial SciencesMedicine

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.

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Saint Louis UniversityUnited States
πŸ‡°πŸ‡· University of UlsanSouth Korea
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Fujian Agriculture and Forestry UniversityChina
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ New Mexico State UniversityUnited States
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Rochester Institute of TechnologyUnited States
Child Nutrition and Water AccessNanofluid Flow and Heat TransferLinguistic, Cultural, and Literary StudiesGlobal Maternal and Child HealthLegal and Regulatory AnalysisMilitary Technology and Strategies

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 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 Qatar University tie into a consortium concept in Social Sciences.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the influence gap and the physical sciences & engineering 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 Dhaka.

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.