Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Boston College (United States), 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.

◇ Ranked in the Research Collaboration Index
🌍 North America · 251 universities benchmarked
10,272
co-authored works, 5 years
846
partner universities
72
partner countries
456
sustained deep ties
3.52
collaboration impact (FWCI)
87%
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
  • Business, Management & Accounting is the standout field. Ranked #185 in the world for connected research, with Social Sciences #318, Psychology #318 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on impact and influence. Boston College sits in the 91st percentile for impact and the 48th for influence: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 107 of 123 partners (87%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Reach is the softest pillar. At the 34th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Physical Sciences & Engineering is the at-risk domain. World #1,091 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 79% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win NUS. World top-2. National University of Singapore is top-115 globally in Social Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Win CUHK. World top-3. Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-130 globally in Social Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. New York University returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 11.3). 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.

571
h-index of the joint research base
3.6M
citations to co-authored work
3.52
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
10,272
co-authored works, 2021-2025
53
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 pctReach34th pctDiversity38th pctSustained35th pctImpact91st pctInternational44th pctBrokerage18th pct

Boston College is strongest on impact (91st percentile), influence (48th) and international (44th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 107 of 123 partners (87%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Reach (34th 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 pillar’s weighted contribution; together they place the university in the global ranked cohort.
Influence22% weight48th pct+10.6
Impact18% weight91st pct+16.4
Sustained18% weight35th pct+6.3
Reach16% weight34th pct+5.4
Diversity16% weight38th pct+6.1
International10% weight44th pct+4.4

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#1000Business, Management &…185Social Sciences318Psychology318Economics, Econometric…344Earth & Planetary Scie…388Health Professions402
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

Boston College's strongest connected fields are Business, Management & Accounting #185, Social Sciences #318, Psychology #318. The portfolio leans on social sciences; Physical Sciences & Engineering, at world #1,091 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 #985 for connected research
18/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Harvard University211
🇺🇸 Boston University82
🇺🇸 Oregon Health & Scien…57
🇺🇸 Washington University…45
🇺🇸 University of Washing…43
Life Sciences
World #1081 for connected research
10/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Harvard University138
🇺🇸 Boston University53
🇺🇸 Northeastern Universi…25
🇺🇸 MIT25
🇺🇸 Yale University22
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #1091 for connected research
9/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Harvard University118
🇫🇷 Université Paris-Sacl…101
🇺🇸 MIT95
🇺🇸 Princeton University87
🇫🇷 Sorbonne Université79
Social Sciences
World #439 for connected research
63/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Harvard University206
🇺🇸 Boston University147
🇺🇸 New York University108
🇺🇸 The University of Tex…98
🇺🇸 Washington University…87
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 yieldHarvard UniversityBoston UniversityWashington UniversNew York Universit
High yieldStandardLow yield

New York University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 11.3): a consortium waiting to happen. Washington University in St. Louis, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.3: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
🇺🇸 Harvard University596 5.1Standard
🇺🇸 Boston University299 3.5Standard
🇺🇸 Massachusetts Institute of Technology142 6.0Standard
🇺🇸 Washington University in St. Louis138 2.3Low yield
🇺🇸 New York University134 11.3High yield
🇺🇸 Yale University131 5.2Standard
🇺🇸 The University of Texas at Austin127 3.7Standard
🇺🇸 University of Michigan118 4.9Standard
🇺🇸 University of Chicago112 4.5Standard
🇺🇸 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill111 3.8Standard
Source: institution-to-institution co-authorship ledger + field-weighted citation impact

Visualisation 4

Your global reach, and where it thins out

Top partner countries

🇺🇸 United States 7,745
🇨🇳 China 704
🇬🇧 United Kingdom 677
🇨🇦 Canada 436
🇫🇷 France 408
🇩🇪 Germany 244
🇨🇭 Switzerland 224
🇮🇹 Italy 209

Anchor partner institutions

🇺🇸 Harvard University 596
🇺🇸 Boston University 299
🇺🇸 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 142
🇺🇸 Washington University in St. Louis 138
🇺🇸 New York University 134
🇺🇸 Yale University 131
🇺🇸 The University of Texas at Austin 127
🇺🇸 University of Michigan 118

The network spans 72 countries and 846 universities, but the top two carry about 79% 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.

🇸🇬 National University of Singapore Singapore · world top-2

National University of Singapore is top-115 globally in Social Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in your strongest field.

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

🇭🇰 Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-3

Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-130 globally in Social Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in your strongest field.

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

🇦🇺 Monash University Australia · world top-7

Monash University is top-52 globally in Social Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in your strongest field.

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

🇦🇺 The University of Queensland Australia · world top-12

The University of Queensland is top-99 globally in Social Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in your strongest field.

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.

Business, Management and AccountingSocial SciencesPhysics and AstronomyEconomics, Econometrics and Finance

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.

🇺🇸 The University of Texas at DallasUnited States
National University of Sciences and TechnologyPK
🇨🇳 University of Science and Technology BeijingChina
🇫🇷 École nationale des ponts et chausséesFrance
🇫🇷 Université de Caen NormandieFrance
Corporate Finance and GovernanceLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsBanking stability, regulation, efficiency

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 NUS 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 New York University tie into a consortium concept in Social Sciences.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the reach gap and the physical sciences & engineering 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 Boston College.

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.