Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Auburn University (United States), a Silver-band university.  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—‹ Silver standing · Research Collaboration Index
๐ŸŒ North America · 251 universities benchmarked
20,931
co-authored works, 5 years
1,054
partner universities
76
partner countries
677
sustained deep ties
2.33
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
  • Veterinary is the standout field. Ranked #112 in the world for connected research, with Agricultural & Biological Sciences #224, Environmental Science #317 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on reach and sustained. Auburn University sits in the 72nd percentile for reach and the 64th for sustained: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 123 of 136 partners (90%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • International is the softest pillar. At the 36th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Health & Medicine is the at-risk domain. World #706 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 China) carry about 84% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win HKU. World top-1. University of Hong Kong is top-181 globally in Life Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Win NUS. World top-2. National University of Singapore is top-96 globally in Life Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 6.6). 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.

481
h-index of the joint research base
3.9M
citations to co-authored work
2.33
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
20,931
co-authored works, 2021-2025
47
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.

Influence48th pctReach72nd pctDiversity57th pctSustained64th pctImpact39th pctInternational36th pctBrokerage68th pct

Auburn University is strongest on reach (72nd percentile), sustained (64th) and diversity (57th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 123 of 136 partners (90%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is International (36th 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 pillarโ€™s weighted contribution; together they place the university in the Silver band worldwide.
Influence22% weight48th pct+10.6
Impact18% weight39th pct+7.0
Sustained18% weight64th pct+11.5
Reach16% weight72nd pct+11.5
Diversity16% weight57th pct+9.1
International10% weight36th pct+3.6

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#1000Veterinary112Agricultural & Biologiโ€ฆ224Environmental Sci.317Business, Management &โ€ฆ361Computer Sci.362Engineering462
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

Auburn University's strongest connected fields are Veterinary #112, Agricultural & Biological Sciences #224, Environmental Science #317. The portfolio leans on life sciences; Health & Medicine, at world #706 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 #706 for connected research
41/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Alabamaโ€ฆ156
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Georgia97
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida68
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Cornell University58
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of North Cโ€ฆ53
Life Sciences
World #408 for connected research
66/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Georgia200
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida168
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Mississippi State Uniโ€ฆ139
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ North Carolina State โ€ฆ113
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Cornell University105
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #458 for connected research
62/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida189
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Marylanโ€ฆ159
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Coloradโ€ฆ136
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท Universitรฉ Paris-Saclโ€ฆ115
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Illinoiโ€ฆ112
Social Sciences
World #523 for connected research
56/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Pennsylvania State Unโ€ฆ76
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Georgia70
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida62
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Florida State Universโ€ฆ59
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Tennessโ€ฆ54
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 yieldUniversity of FlorUniversity of GeorUniversity of AlabUniversity of Illi
High yieldStandardLow yield

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 6.6): a consortium waiting to happen. University of Alabama at Birmingham, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 1.4: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida440 3.8Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Georgia394 2.6Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Mississippi State University280 2.6Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Texas A&M University269 5.1Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Alabama at Birmingham264 1.4Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ North Carolina State University234 2.9Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Tennessee at Knoxville215 3.2Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Michigan State University205 4.2Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign201 6.6High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Iowa State University199 3.5Standard
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‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ United States 12,696
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 2,496
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 583
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 574
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 540
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 416
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 394
๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ‡ท Brazil 378

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida 440
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Georgia 394
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Mississippi State University 280
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Texas A&M University 269
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Alabama at Birmingham 264
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ North Carolina State University 234
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Tennessee at Knoxville 215
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Michigan State University 205

The network spans 76 countries and 1,054 universities, but the top two carry about 84% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Middle East white-space (0 of the region's 2 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‡ญ๐Ÿ‡ฐ University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-1

University of Hong Kong is top-181 globally in Life Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Veterinary.

Funding route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant

๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฌ National University of Singapore Singapore · world top-2

National University of Singapore is top-96 globally in Life Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Veterinary.

Funding route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant

๐Ÿ‡ญ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-3

Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-218 globally in Life Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Veterinary.

Funding route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant

๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Oxford United Kingdom · world top-4

University of Oxford is top-28 globally in Life Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Veterinary.

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.

Mississippi Alabama Sea Grant Consortium
Agricultural and Biological SciencesEnvironmental ScienceEngineeringPhysics 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‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Sejong UniversitySouth Korea
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Syracuse UniversityUnited States
๐Ÿ‡น๐Ÿ‡ญ Chiang Mai UniversityThailand
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of North TexasUnited States
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Renmin University of ChinaChina
Aquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFish Ecology and Management StudiesAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyElectronic Packaging and Soldering TechnologiesAtomic and Molecular PhysicsAquaculture disease management and microbiota

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 and a Middle East 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 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign tie into a consortium concept in Life Sciences.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the international gap and the health & medicine 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 Auburn University.

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.