The enhanced fact file
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.
The one-screen strategic read
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.
Scholarly weight
Collaboration only counts if the work lands. This is the citation weight of everything produced with partners, the substance under the network.
Visualisation 1
The six scored pillars plus the brokerage diagnostic, each shown as a global percentile. The dashed ring marks the top-decile benchmark; anything inside it is a genuine, defensible strength.
China University of Petroleum, Beijing is strongest on network brokerage, influence, impact. Its brokerage is a defining signal: 89 of 98 anchor partners (91%) are non-redundant, meaning it bridges research communities that would otherwise stay disconnected, rather than simply publishing widely.
The pillar with the most headroom is Diversity (7th percentile): the single most useful line on the chart, because it points straight at the opportunities below.
Source: the open global research record, co-authored works 2021-2025, fractional countingThe anatomy of your standing
Six pillars, each weighted, combine into one standing index. Nothing is hidden: this is the entire calculation, in a single bar.
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
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-3 crown jewel.
The strongest field is Chemical Engineering, ranked #159 in the world for connected research. The chart instantly separates the crown jewels to lead with from the at-risk subjects slipping down the scale: social sciences is the softest domain at world #977.
Source: subject-level indices, 26 fields, minimum 50-university gateDiscipline deep-dive
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.
Visualisation 3
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.
Jiangsu University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 3.7): a consortium waiting to happen. Yangtze University, by contrast, is the scale partner: FWCI 2.0, still well above the world average of 1.0; deepening impact here would compound fastest. Yield classes are relative to this partner set, not to the world.
| Partner | Joint works | FWCI | Yield |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🇨🇳 China University of Petroleum, East China | 803 | 2.3 | Standard |
| 🇨🇳 Tsinghua University | 484 | 3.2 | Standard |
| 🇨🇳 Peking University | 417 | 3.2 | Standard |
| 🇨🇳 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences | 380 | 3.4 | Standard |
| 🇨🇳 Southwest Petroleum University | 374 | 2.1 | Standard |
| 🇨🇳 China University of Geosciences (Beijing) | 367 | 2.4 | Standard |
| 🇨🇳 China University of Geosciences | 298 | 3.2 | Standard |
| 🇨🇳 Yangtze University | 297 | 2.0 | Standard |
| 🇨🇦 University of Calgary | 251 | 3.0 | Standard |
| 🇨🇳 China University of Mining and Technology | 217 | 2.6 | Standard |
Visualisation 4
The network spans 58 countries and 647 universities, but the top two countries (China and United States) carry about 85% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Europe white-space (only 7 of its 100 leading collaborators are anchor partners) is the clearest gap to close.
Visualisation 5
The European Commission award record shows no Horizon funding attributed to this university in the current window, which is common outside the EU. Your enhanced fact file maps the national and bilateral funders that actually back this network, from NSFC, JSPS and A*STAR to NIH, NSF, UKRI and the ERC, each named and linked, so every fundable opportunity below sits next to a real programme that could pay for it.
Funding is shown next to the network because the two move together: the fundable opportunities below are chosen where a real programme already exists to pay for the bridge.
Source: funders' own award systems + CORDIS, awards active 2021-2025 · verifiedVisualisation 6
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.
Chinese University of Hong Kong ranks #12 in Chemical Engineering, one of your strongest fields. A natural, fundable bridge you have not yet built at scale.
Funding route: a bilateral programme linking the NSFC and the RGC, or a joint international call
University of Oxford ranks #4 in Earth & Planetary Sciences, one of your strongest fields. A natural, fundable bridge you have not yet built at scale.
Funding route: a bilateral programme linking the NSFC and UKRI, or a Horizon Europe consortium
University College London ranks #1 in Earth & Planetary Sciences, one of your strongest fields. A natural, fundable bridge you have not yet built at scale.
Funding route: a bilateral programme linking the NSFC and UKRI, or a Horizon Europe consortium
University of Cambridge ranks #2 in Earth & Planetary Sciences, one of your strongest fields. A natural, fundable bridge you have not yet built at scale.
Funding route: a bilateral programme linking the NSFC and UKRI, or a Horizon Europe consortium
The research base
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.
Context
The named peer group your fact file compares you to, pillar by pillar and subject by subject.
The most-cited work produced with partners, each verifiable.
From insight to action
The dossier ends where a strategy meeting begins: three moves, sequenced, each pointing back to a specific finding above.
Adopt CUHK and one Europe hub as formal partnership targets; brief the relevant department heads with the joint white-space evidence.
Scope the specific bilateral or cross-region call for each target, and convert the Jiangsu University tie into a consortium concept in the strongest shared field, anchored on Chemical Engineering.
Address the diversity gap; review the high-volume, low-impact partnerships for quality; set a diversification target for the long tail; and secure an editorial feature in the reputation-survey window.
Exclusive to partners
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.
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.
A small number of institutions work with us as partners, with verified data, editorial reach across our global network, and intelligence that supports a deeper understanding of their peers. Detail is shared on request, and a partnership never changes a position.
Request a partnership conversation →