Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for China University of Geosciences (Beijing) (China), 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.

β—‡ Ranked in the Research Collaboration Index
🌍 Asia-Pacific · 391 universities benchmarked
19,164
co-authored works, 5 years
800
partner universities
63
partner countries
418
sustained deep ties
2.52
collaboration impact (FWCI)
89%
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
  • Strong on influence and impact. China University of Geosciences (Beijing) sits in the 64th percentile for influence and the 49th for impact: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 79 of 88 partners (89%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Diversity is the softest pillar. At the 14th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Health & Medicine is the at-risk domain. World #1,165 for connected research, far behind the rest of the portfolio: a real gap, not a crown jewel.
  • Network concentration. The top two partner countries (China and United States) carry about 81% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win NUS. World top-2. National University of Singapore is top-56 globally in Physical Sciences. Route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program.
  • Win UCL. World top-5. University College London is top-93 globally in Physical Sciences. Route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. Nanjing University returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 3.6). 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.

372
h-index of the joint research base
2.6M
citations to co-authored work
2.52
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
19,164
co-authored works, 2021-2025
33
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.

Influence64th pctReach26th pctDiversity14th pctSustained29th pctImpact49th pctInternational29th pctBrokerage41st pct

China University of Geosciences (Beijing) is strongest on influence (64th percentile), impact (49th) and sustained (29th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 79 of 88 partners (89%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Diversity (14th 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.

InflImpaSustReacInteEach block is a pillar’s weighted contribution; together they place the university in the global ranked cohort.
Influence22% weight64th pct+14.1
Impact18% weight49th pct+8.8
Sustained18% weight29th pct+5.2
Reach16% weight26th pct+4.2
Diversity16% weight14th pct+2.2
International10% weight29th pct+2.9

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.

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 #1165 for connected research
2/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of G…16
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University11
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Beijing Normal Univer…10
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Chinese…9
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Tsinghua University9
Life Sciences
World #1148 for connected research
4/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of G…39
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Chinese…35
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Tsinghua University22
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University15
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Beijing Normal Univer…12
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #160 for connected research
87/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of G…1,202
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Chinese…745
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University681
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί The University of Ade…408
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Tsinghua University396
Social Sciences
World #1065 for connected research
11/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of G…60
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University48
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Chinese…26
πŸ‡­πŸ‡° CUHK22
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Beijing Normal Univer…20
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 yieldChina University oUniversity of ChinJilin UniversityNanjing University
High yieldStandardLow yield

Nanjing University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 3.6): a consortium waiting to happen. Jilin University, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.3: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of Geosciences1,156 2.8Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Chinese Academy of Sciences776 3.4Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University718 2.8Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of Mining and Technology412 2.5Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Tsinghua University412 2.7Standard
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί The University of Adelaide401 3.1Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of Petroleum, Beijing367 2.4Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Chengdu University of Technology312 3.2Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Beijing Normal University274 2.9Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Jilin University243 2.3Standard
Source: institution-to-institution co-authorship ledger + field-weighted citation impact

Visualisation 4

Your global reach, and where it thins out

Top partner countries

πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China 10,515
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ United States 1,220
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί Australia 1,046
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ United Kingdom 530
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦ Canada 390
πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ Germany 312
πŸ‡­πŸ‡° Hong Kong SAR 304
πŸ‡«πŸ‡· France 260

Anchor partner institutions

πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of Geosciences 1,156
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Chinese Academy of Sciences 776
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University 718
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of Mining and Technology 412
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Tsinghua University 412
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί The University of Adelaide 401
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of Petroleum, Beijing 367
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Chengdu University of Technology 312

The network spans 63 countries and 800 universities, but the top two carry about 81% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Europe white-space (6 of the region's 100 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.

πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡¬ National University of Singapore Singapore · world top-2

National University of Singapore is top-56 globally in Physical 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

πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ University College London United Kingdom · world top-5

University College London is top-93 globally in Physical 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

πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ University of Cambridge United Kingdom · world top-6

University of Cambridge is top-97 globally in Physical 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

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Harvard University United States · world top-8

Harvard University is top-62 globally in Physical 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.

Earth and Planetary SciencesComputer ScienceEngineering

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.

πŸ‡©πŸ‡° Copenhagen Business SchoolDenmark
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Nanjing University of Posts and TelecommunicationsChina
πŸ‡΅πŸ‡± Nicolaus Copernicus UniversityPoland
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Harbin Medical UniversityChina
πŸ‡§πŸ‡· Universidade Federal de SΓ£o CarlosBrazil
Geological and Geochemical AnalysisGeochemistry and Geologic MappingHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisearthquake and tectonic studiesHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsGeological and Geophysical Studies

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 Europe 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 Nanjing University tie into a consortium concept in Physical Sciences & Engineering.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the diversity 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 China University of Geosciences (Beijing).

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 rivals.

Partner fact file · locked

Unlocked for partners. Confirm before 12:00, 22 July 2026 to be included at the 1 September launch.

Claim your fact file →

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 rivals.

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 rivals with Recognition, five with Partnership, up to ten with Flagship.

Your research, in front of 172,000 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

172,000
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 1 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.