Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for University of Ulsan (South Korea), 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 Asia-Pacific · 391 universities benchmarked
19,964
co-authored works, 5 years
845
partner universities
68
partner countries
459
sustained deep ties
2.36
collaboration impact (FWCI)
90%
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
  • Medicine is the standout field. Ranked #335 in the world for connected research, with Dentistry #463, Immunology & Microbiology #498 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on influence and impact. University of Ulsan sits in the 50th percentile for influence and the 41st for impact: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 48 of 54 partners (90%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • International is the softest pillar. At the 24th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Social Sciences is the at-risk domain. World #1,135 for connected research, far behind the rest of the portfolio: a real gap, not a crown jewel.
  • Network concentration. The top two partner countries (South Korea and United States) carry about 88% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win University of Oxford. World top-4. University of Oxford is top-29 globally in Health Sciences. Route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program.
  • Win University of Cambridge. World top-6. University of Cambridge is top-110 globally in Health Sciences. Route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. Sungkyunkwan University returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 3.1). 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.

492
h-index of the joint research base
5.6M
citations to co-authored work
2.36
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
19,964
co-authored works, 2021-2025
32
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.

Influence50th pctReach34th pctDiversity25th pctSustained35th pctImpact41st pctInternational24th pctBrokerage44th pct

University of Ulsan is strongest on influence (50th percentile), impact (41st) and sustained (35th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 48 of 54 partners (90%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is International (24th 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.

InflImpaSustReacDiveEach block is a pillarโ€™s weighted contribution; together they place the university in the global ranked cohort.
Influence22% weight50th pct+11.0
Impact18% weight41st pct+7.4
Sustained18% weight35th pct+6.3
Reach16% weight34th pct+5.4
Diversity16% weight25th pct+4.0
International10% weight24th pct+2.4

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#1000Medicine335Dentistry463Immunology & Microbiolโ€ฆ498Biochem. & Mol. Biology502Health Professions565Materials Science618
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

University of Ulsan's strongest connected fields are Medicine #335, Dentistry #463, Immunology & Microbiology #498. The portfolio leans on health & medicine; Social Sciences, at world #1,135 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 #303 for connected research
75/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Ulsan College10,993
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Seoul National Univerโ€ฆ2,789
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Yonsei University2,169
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Sungkyunkwan Universiโ€ฆ1,859
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Korea University1,487
Life Sciences
World #872 for connected research
27/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Ulsan College1,679
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Seoul National Univerโ€ฆ421
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Yonsei University296
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Sungkyunkwan Universiโ€ฆ247
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Korea University185
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #862 for connected research
28/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Ulsan College731
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Seoul National Univerโ€ฆ191
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Korea Advanced Institโ€ฆ144
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Yonsei University135
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Sungkyunkwan Universiโ€ฆ128
Social Sciences
World #1135 for connected research
5/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Ulsan College311
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Seoul National Univerโ€ฆ61
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Yonsei University45
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Korea University38
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Sungkyunkwan Universiโ€ฆ38
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 yieldUlsan CollegeSeoul National UniSungkyunkwan UniveCatholic Universit
High yieldStandardLow yield

Sungkyunkwan University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 3.1): a consortium waiting to happen. Ulsan College, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.5: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Ulsan College12,429 2.5Low yield
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Seoul National University3,290 3.0Low yield
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Yonsei University2,498 3.0Low yield
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Sungkyunkwan University2,166 3.1Low yield
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Korea University1,724 2.4Low yield
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Catholic University of Korea1,597 2.2Low yield
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Chonnam National University969 2.6Low yield
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Chung-Ang University819 2.6Low yield
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Kyung Hee University795 2.5Low yield
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Ewha Womans University771 2.3Low 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‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท South Korea 33,983
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ United States 3,709
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 1,183
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡น Italy 922
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 886
๐Ÿ‡ฏ๐Ÿ‡ต Japan 737
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 642
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 632

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Ulsan College 12,429
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Seoul National University 3,290
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Yonsei University 2,498
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Sungkyunkwan University 2,166
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Korea University 1,724
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Catholic University of Korea 1,597
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Chonnam National University 969
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Chung-Ang University 819

The network spans 68 countries and 845 universities, but the top two carry about 88% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Europe white-space (7 of the region's 100 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‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Oxford United Kingdom · world top-4

University of Oxford is top-29 globally in Health 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‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Cambridge United Kingdom · world top-6

University of Cambridge is top-110 globally in Health 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‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Monash University Australia · world top-7

Monash University is top-43 globally in Health 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‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Edinburgh United Kingdom · world top-9

University of Edinburgh is top-147 globally in Health 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

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.

Ulsan University Hospital
Medicine

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‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Guizhou UniversityChina
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช University of MannheimGermany
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Saint Louis UniversityUnited States
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Fujian Agriculture and Forestry UniversityChina
University of DhakaBD
Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies

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 University of Oxford and a Europe 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 Sungkyunkwan University tie into a consortium concept in Health & Medicine.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the international gap and the social 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 Ulsan.

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.