WEEKEND READING: Reconfiguring UK research collaborations in the post-Brexit era

This blog was kindly authored by Yusuf Oldac (X: @YusufOldac), Assistant Professor at the Education University of Hong Kong, and Francisco Olivos (X: @fjolivos), Assistant Professor at Lingnan University.

The United Kingdom has long been a global leader in research, with its universities and scholars at the heart of international collaborations. However, the landscape of UK research collaborations has undergone a marked shift since the Brexit referendum 10 years ago. Our recent study, based on large-scale bibliometric data from over 85,000 publications from 2010 to 2022, provides empirical evidence of how Brexit has reconfigured the UK’s position in global research networks. These changes carry substantial implications for policymakers, universities, and researchers seeking to maintain the UK’s competitive edge in research and innovation.

Before Brexit, UK researchers were deeply integrated into European scientific networks, benefiting from shared infrastructure, generous funding schemes such as Horizon Europe, and mobility opportunities that facilitated knowledge exchange. This integration was not merely symbolic; it translated into tangible outcomes such as high-impact publications and leadership in collaborative projects. However, coinciding with the period following the 2016 Brexit referendum, collaboration volumes with EU partners have declined noticeably in proportional terms within total collaborations. This reduction is particularly concerning because European collaborations historically accounted for more than half of the UK’s international research output. While partnerships with North America and Australia remain important, they have not compensated for the loss of EU ties.

Conversely, collaborations with East Asia have grown significantly, rising from 12 per cent of UK co-authored papers in our dataset before the referendum to 17 per cent in 2022. Within collaborations with East Asia, the volume of publications with China-based researchers is significant. Our data also show a sixfold increase in internationally collaborative publications by UK-based researchers supported by Chinese funding sources, comparing the six years before and after the 2016 referendum. While this trend may indicate UK researchers’ resilience in obtaining research funding amidst uncertainty with the future of research collaboration within Europe,  and offers opportunities for new research agendas, it also raises strategic questions about increased reliance on Chinese research funders and the geopolitical implications of shifting alliances.

Leadership patterns in collaborative research have also shifted. UK scholars are less likely to occupy first-authorship positions in joint publications, particularly those involving EU partners. First authorship often signals intellectual leadership and initiative, so this decline suggests a weakening of the UK’s influence in shaping collaborative projects. Conversely, East Asian partners are increasingly taking on leadership roles, especially in funded research. This shift underscores the importance of stable funding structures for maintaining leadership as it is usually the authors who secured the research funding that hold the leading authorship roles in collaborative publications. The UK’s recent re-entry into Horizon Europe as an associate member is a positive development, but the terms are less favourable than before and do not restore freedom of movement for researchers. Without robust mobility and funding mechanisms, the UK risks further erosion of its leadership position in collaborative papers.

Citation impact provides another lens to assess the UK’s research standing. Although UK research remains highly cited globally, our analysis reveals a downward trend in Category Normalised Citation Impact (CNCI) since the Brexit vote. This decline is evident across domestic, EU, and global collaborations, suggesting that reduced connectivity with European networks may have broader consequences. Citation impact is not merely an academic metric; it influences global rankings, funding decisions, and the attractiveness of UK institutions to international talent.

Policy Implications

First, diversification should not be treated as a zero-sum game. Expanding collaborations with Asia, Africa, and Latin America is valuable, but it should complement, not replace, strong ties with Europe. Given the scale of existing EU partnerships, even a small decline represents a significant loss in productivity and influence.

Second, funding structures matter. The uncertainty surrounding EU research funding post-Brexit has had relatively quick and visible effects on collaboration patterns. Policymakers must prioritise stable, accessible funding schemes and mobility opportunities to maintain the UK’s competitiveness.

Third, continuous monitoring is essential. The patterns observed in our study may evolve, and timely evidence can help mitigate negative impacts while leveraging new opportunities.

Conclusion

The UK’s global research collaborations have undergone a reconfiguration in the period following Brexit. While diversification offers new possibilities, maintaining strong European networks remains critical for sustaining the UK’s research excellence. Policymakers should act decisively to secure funding, support mobility, and foster inclusive collaboration strategies. Diversification in research collaborations with other regions and countries should not be done at the expense of previous strong ties with Europe-based researchers. These are important to ensure that UK research continues to thrive in an increasingly interconnected and competitive global landscape.