Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Guangzhou University (China), 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.

β—‹ Silver standing · Research Collaboration Index
🌍 Asia-Pacific · 391 universities benchmarked
23,118
co-authored works, 5 years
883
partner universities
69
partner countries
501
sustained deep ties
3.05
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
  • Energy is the standout field. Ranked #205 in the world for connected research, with Computer Science #232, Chemical Engineering #255 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on impact and influence. Guangzhou University sits in the 76th percentile for impact and the 73rd for influence: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 118 of 133 partners (89%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Diversity is the softest pillar. At the 28th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Health & Medicine is the at-risk domain. World #979 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 Hong Kong SAR) carry about 84% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win University of Oxford. World top-4. University of Oxford is top-84 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. Shenzhen University returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 4.2). 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.

316
h-index of the joint research base
1.8M
citations to co-authored work
3.05
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
23,118
co-authored works, 2021-2025
48
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.

Influence73rd pctReach41st pctDiversity28th pctSustained41st pctImpact76th pctInternational44th pctBrokerage37th pct

Guangzhou University is strongest on impact (76th percentile), influence (73rd) and international (44th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 118 of 133 partners (89%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Diversity (28th 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 Silver band worldwide.
Influence22% weight73rd pct+16.1
Impact18% weight76th pct+13.7
Sustained18% weight41st pct+7.4
Reach16% weight41st pct+6.6
Diversity16% weight28th pct+4.5
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#1000Energy205Computer Sci.232Chemical Engineering255Engineering263Economics, Econometric…309Decision Sciences326
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

Guangzhou University's strongest connected fields are Energy #205, Computer Science #232, Chemical Engineering #255. The portfolio leans on physical sciences & engineering; Health & Medicine, at world #979 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 #979 for connected research
18/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Guangzhou University …314
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sun Yat-sen University224
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Guangzhou Medical Uni…169
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Southern Medical Univ…148
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Capital Medical Unive…113
Life Sciences
World #752 for connected research
37/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sun Yat-sen University271
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Guangzhou University …193
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Jinan University159
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Chinese…158
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University142
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #241 for connected research
80/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ South China Universit…1,068
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Guangdong University …725
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sun Yat-sen University633
πŸ‡­πŸ‡° HKU419
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Harbin Institute of T…410
Social Sciences
World #653 for connected research
45/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ South China Normal Un…149
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sun Yat-sen University114
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ South China Universit…108
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Jinan University93
πŸ‡­πŸ‡° HKU69
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 yieldSouth China UniverSun Yat-sen UniverGuangzhou UniversiShenzhen Universit
High yieldStandardLow yield

Shenzhen University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 4.2): a consortium waiting to happen. Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.4: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ South China University of Technology1,187 2.9Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sun Yat-sen University1,053 3.1Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Guangdong University of Technology744 3.2Standard
πŸ‡­πŸ‡° University of Hong Kong526 3.7Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ South China Normal University526 2.7Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Chinese Academy of Sciences500 4.0Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine465 2.4Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Jinan University413 3.8Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University405 3.7Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Harbin Institute of Technology401 3.1Standard
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 19,416
πŸ‡­πŸ‡° Hong Kong SAR 1,647
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ United States 1,580
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί Australia 1,159
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ United Kingdom 604
πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡¬ Singapore 313
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦ Canada 250
πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅ Japan 210

Anchor partner institutions

πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ South China University of Technology 1,187
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sun Yat-sen University 1,053
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Guangdong University of Technology 744
πŸ‡­πŸ‡° University of Hong Kong 526
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ South China Normal University 526
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Chinese Academy of Sciences 500
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine 465
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Jinan University 413

The network spans 69 countries and 883 universities, but the top two carry about 84% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Europe white-space (1 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‡¬πŸ‡§ University of Oxford United Kingdom · world top-4

University of Oxford is top-84 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‡¦πŸ‡Ί Monash University Australia · world top-7

Monash University is top-215 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

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.

EnergyComputer ScienceEngineeringMedicine

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‡³ Northwest A&F UniversityChina
Semmelweis UniversityHU
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡­ University of FribourgSwitzerland
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ University of StirlingUnited Kingdom
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Ningbo UniversityChina
Advanced Photocatalysis TechniquesPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataCryptography and Data SecuritySeismic Performance and AnalysisStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisTraditional Chinese Medicine 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 University of Oxford 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 Shenzhen 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 Guangzhou 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.