Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for University of Wales (United Kingdom), 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 Europe · 417 universities benchmarked
1,287
co-authored works, 5 years
548
partner universities
61
partner countries
132
sustained deep ties
4.56
collaboration impact (FWCI)
88%
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
  • Physics & Astronomy is the standout field. Ranked #592 in the world for connected research, with Health Professions #813, Medicine #854 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on impact and international. University of Wales sits in the 99th percentile for impact and the 84th for international: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 91 of 103 partners (88%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Sustained is the softest pillar. At the 2nd percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Life Sciences is the at-risk domain. World #1,194 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 Kingdom and United States) carry about 68% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win HKU. World top-1. University of Hong Kong is top-146 globally in Health Sciences. Route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program.
  • Win NUS. World top-2. National University of Singapore is top-85 globally in Health Sciences. Route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. UCL returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 6.0). 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.

549
h-index of the joint research base
3.6M
citations to co-authored work
4.56
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
1,287
co-authored works, 2021-2025
62
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.

Influence3rd pctReach4th pctDiversity11th pctSustained2nd pctImpact99th pctInternational84th pctBrokerage28th pct

University of Wales is strongest on impact (99th percentile), international (84th) and diversity (11th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 91 of 103 partners (88%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Sustained (2nd 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.

ImpaInteEach block is a pillarโ€™s weighted contribution; together they place the university in the global ranked cohort.
Influence22% weight3rd pct+0.7
Impact18% weight99th pct+17.8
Sustained18% weight2nd pct+0.4
Reach16% weight4th pct+0.6
Diversity16% weight11th pct+1.8
International10% weight84th pct+8.4

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#1000Physics & Astronomy592Health Professions813Medicine854Psychology882Neuroscience887Engineering888
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

University of Wales's strongest connected fields are Physics & Astronomy #592, Health Professions #813, Medicine #854. The portfolio leans on health & medicine; Life Sciences, at world #1,194 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 #1181 for connected research
1/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Cardiff University285
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ University of Wollongโ€ฆ43
๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ‡ช Ghent University38
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Monash University37
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Griffith University31
Life Sciences
World #1194 for connected research
0/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Cardiff University103
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง King's College London6
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Swansea University6
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Newcastle University6
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Oxford5
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #1189 for connected research
0/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Cardiff University284
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ38
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Swansea University37
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง UCL33
๐Ÿ‡ณ๐Ÿ‡ด University of Oslo23
Social Sciences
World #1188 for connected research
1/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Cardiff University94
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Swansea University15
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Manchesโ€ฆ11
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Oxford9
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Liverpoโ€ฆ7
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 yieldCardiff UniversitySwansea UniversityUniversity of Camb
High yieldStandardLow yield

UCL returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 6.0): a consortium waiting to happen. Swansea University, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.4: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Cardiff University668 3.5Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Swansea University62 2.4Low yield
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University College London51 6.0High yield
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Oxford45 8.6High yield
๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ‡ช Ghent University40 6.1High yield
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ University of Wollongong40 4.6Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Monash University39 4.3Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Manchester39 4.9Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Imperial College London31 9.9High yield
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Bristol29 3.9Standard
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‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 1,299
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ United States 344
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 177
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 163
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡น Italy 141
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 128
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 95
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 69

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Cardiff University 668
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง Swansea University 62
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University College London 51
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Oxford 45
๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ‡ช Ghent University 40
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ University of Wollongong 40
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Monash University 39
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Manchester 39

The network spans 61 countries and 548 universities, but the top two carry about 68% 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 University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-1

University of Hong Kong is top-146 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‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฌ National University of Singapore Singapore · world top-2

National University of Singapore is top-85 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‡ญ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-3

Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-132 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‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฌ Nanyang Technological University Singapore · world top-14

Nanyang Technological University is top-538 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.

Irish Baptist College
Earth and Planetary SciencesNeuroscienceArts and HumanitiesPhysics and Astronomy

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 Shanxi UniversityChina
๐Ÿ‡ต๐Ÿ‡ฑ Poznan University of Medical SciencesPoland
Tunis UniversityTN
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท Universitรฉ de Picardie Jules VerneFrance
๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ‡ท Universidade Federal FluminenseBrazil
Geology and Paleoclimatology ResearchNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchScottish History and National IdentityGeological formations and processesSemiconductor Quantum Structures and DevicesCryospheric studies and observations

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 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 UCL tie into a consortium concept in Health & Medicine.

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 Wales.

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.