Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Guizhou University (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
36,266
co-authored works, 5 years
831
partner universities
67
partner countries
457
sustained deep ties
2.21
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
  • Chemical Engineering is the standout field. Ranked #288 in the world for connected research, with Agricultural & Biological Sciences #302, Nursing #313 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on influence and sustained. Guizhou University sits in the 65th percentile for influence and the 35th for sustained: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 113 of 130 partners (87%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • International is the softest pillar. At the 13th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Social Sciences is the at-risk domain. World #899 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 90% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win University of Oxford. World top-4. University of Oxford is top-28 globally in Life Sciences. Route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program.
  • Win University of Cambridge. World top-6. University of Cambridge is top-47 globally in Life Sciences. Route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. University of Electronic Science and Technology of China returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 4.5). 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.

247
h-index of the joint research base
1.8M
citations to co-authored work
2.21
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
36,266
co-authored works, 2021-2025
23
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.

Influence65th pctReach31st pctDiversity22nd pctSustained35th pctImpact34th pctInternational13th pctBrokerage20th pct

Guizhou University is strongest on influence (65th percentile), sustained (35th) and impact (34th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 113 of 130 partners (87%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is International (13th 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.

InflImpaSustReacDiveEach block is a pillar’s weighted contribution; together they place the university in the global ranked cohort.
Influence22% weight65th pct+14.3
Impact18% weight34th pct+6.1
Sustained18% weight35th pct+6.3
Reach16% weight31st pct+5.0
Diversity16% weight22nd pct+3.5
International10% weight13th pct+1.3

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#1000Chemical Engineering288Agricultural & Biologi…302Nursing313Energy316Chemistry415Materials Science432
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

Guizhou University's strongest connected fields are Chemical Engineering #288, Agricultural & Biological Sciences #302, Nursing #313. The portfolio leans on life sciences; Social Sciences, at world #899 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 #642 for connected research
46/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Chinese Academy of Me…181
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University175
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sun Yat-sen University162
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Zhejiang University160
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Shanghai Jiao Tong Un…159
Life Sciences
World #37 for connected research
97/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Zhejiang University395
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Chinese Academy of Me…348
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University328
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sichuan University327
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Chinese…321
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #124 for connected research
90/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Chinese…309
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Chongqing University299
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Zhejiang University282
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Hunan University276
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of M…249
Social Sciences
World #899 for connected research
25/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Zhejiang University36
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Central South Univers…19
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of M…15
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ University of Hertfor…14
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ University of Notting…11
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 AgriculturalTexas A&M UniversiChongqing Universi
High yieldStandardLow yield

University of Electronic Science and Technology of China returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 4.5): a consortium waiting to happen. China Agricultural University, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 0.5: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China Agricultural University973 0.5Low yield
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Texas A&M University779 0.0Low yield
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University583 1.4Low yield
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Zhejiang University559 2.7Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Chinese Academy of Sciences513 2.4Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Central South University388 2.1Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sichuan University367 1.6Low yield
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sun Yat-sen University339 1.4Low yield
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Chongqing University327 3.5Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College320 1.1Low yield
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 18,430
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ United States 2,348
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ United Kingdom 599
SA 485
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί Australia 382
πŸ‡­πŸ‡° Hong Kong SAR 354
πŸ‡«πŸ‡· France 297
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦ Canada 283

Anchor partner institutions

πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China Agricultural University 973
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Texas A&M University 779
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University 583
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Zhejiang University 559
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Chinese Academy of Sciences 513
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Central South University 388
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sichuan University 367
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sun Yat-sen University 339

The network spans 67 countries and 831 universities, but the top two carry about 90% 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-28 globally in Life 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-47 globally in Life 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-121 globally in Life 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 Edinburgh United Kingdom · world top-9

University of Edinburgh is top-86 globally in Life 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.

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular BiologyAgricultural and Biological SciencesEngineering

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.

Al-Azhar UniversityEG
University of Novi SadRS
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Beijing University of Posts and TelecommunicationsChina
πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ University of MannheimGermany
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Saint Louis UniversityUnited States
Plant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesPlant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityRock Mechanics and Modeling

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 University of Electronic Science and Technology of China tie into a consortium concept in Life Sciences.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the international gap and the social sciences 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 Guizhou 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.