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

โ—‡ Ranked in the Research Collaboration Index
๐ŸŒ North America · 251 universities benchmarked
6,673
co-authored works, 5 years
775
partner universities
68
partner countries
371
sustained deep ties
2.40
collaboration impact (FWCI)
84%
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
  • Neuroscience is the standout field. Ranked #519 in the world for connected research, with Physics & Astronomy #581, Dentistry #631 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on impact and international. Howard University sits in the 43rd percentile for impact and the 38th for international: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 98 of 116 partners (84%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Sustained is the softest pillar. At the 22nd percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Physical Sciences & Engineering is the at-risk domain. World #1,086 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 85% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win HKU. World top-1. University of Hong Kong is top-146 globally in Health 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-85 globally in Health Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. Johns Hopkins University returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 4.0). 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.

344
h-index of the joint research base
1.3M
citations to co-authored work
2.40
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
6,673
co-authored works, 2021-2025
32
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.

Influence23rd pctReach23rd pctDiversity25th pctSustained22nd pctImpact43rd pctInternational38th pctBrokerage8th pct

Howard University is strongest on impact (43rd percentile), international (38th) and diversity (25th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 98 of 116 partners (84%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Sustained (22nd 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 global ranked cohort.
Influence22% weight23rd pct+5.1
Impact18% weight43rd pct+7.7
Sustained18% weight22nd pct+4.0
Reach16% weight23rd pct+3.7
Diversity16% weight25th pct+4.0
International10% weight38th pct+3.8

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#1000Neuroscience519Physics & Astronomy581Dentistry631Pharmacology, Toxicoloโ€ฆ648Biochem. & Mol. Biology719Medicine735
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

Howard University's strongest connected fields are Neuroscience #519, Physics & Astronomy #581, Dentistry #631. The portfolio leans on health & medicine; Physical Sciences & Engineering, at world #1,086 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 #835 for connected research
30/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins Universโ€ฆ148
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Georgetown University142
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Marylanโ€ฆ114
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Alabamaโ€ฆ97
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ George Washington Uniโ€ฆ89
Life Sciences
World #1021 for connected research
15/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Georgetown University63
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins Universโ€ฆ57
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Washingโ€ฆ45
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University42
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Pennsylโ€ฆ42
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #1086 for connected research
9/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Marylanโ€ฆ101
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Coloradโ€ฆ52
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan49
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Banaras Hindu Universโ€ฆ48
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Illinoiโ€ฆ44
Social Sciences
World #935 for connected research
22/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Georgetown University32
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ George Washington Uniโ€ฆ29
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ New York University29
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins Universโ€ฆ26
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Alabamaโ€ฆ25
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 yieldGeorgetown UniversJohns Hopkins UnivUniversity of MaryHarvard University
High yieldStandardLow yield

Johns Hopkins University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 4.0): a consortium waiting to happen. Georgetown University, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 1.7: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Georgetown University211 1.7Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins University210 4.0High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Maryland, Baltimore145 1.6Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Maryland, College Park141 2.2Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Washington135 7.2High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ George Washington University126 5.0High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan114 3.5Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Stanford University113 8.2High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Pennsylvania111 8.0High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University111 9.6High 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

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ United States 6,338
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 351
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 241
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 210
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท South Korea 207
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 195
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ India 184
๐Ÿ‡ฏ๐Ÿ‡ต Japan 168

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Georgetown University 211
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins University 210
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Maryland, Baltimore 145
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Maryland, College Park 141
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Washington 135
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ George Washington University 126
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan 114
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Stanford University 113

The network spans 68 countries and 775 universities, but the top two carry about 85% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Europe white-space (7 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.

๐Ÿ‡ญ๐Ÿ‡ฐ University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-1

University of Hong Kong is top-146 globally in Health 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

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

National University of Singapore is top-85 globally in Health 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

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

Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-132 globally in Health 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

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

University of Oxford is top-29 globally in Health 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.

Inova Fairfax HospitalHoward University Hospital
MedicineChemistryMaterials ScienceSocial Sciences

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‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Hebei University of TechnologyChina
๐Ÿ‡ฏ๐Ÿ‡ต Tokyo University of ScienceJapan
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ North China Electric Power UniversityChina
National Sun Yat-sen UniversityTW
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Harbin Engineering UniversityChina
Metal complexes synthesis and propertiesCrystal structures of chemical compoundsHemoglobinopathies and Related DisordersIron Metabolism and DisordersMagnetism in coordination complexesRace, History, and American Society

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 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 Johns Hopkins University tie into a consortium concept in Health & Medicine.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the sustained 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 Howard 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.