Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Illinois Institute of Technology (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
6,139
co-authored works, 5 years
841
partner universities
64
partner countries
401
sustained deep ties
2.51
collaboration impact (FWCI)
88%
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 international and impact. Illinois Institute of Technology sits in the 66th percentile for international and the 48th for impact: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 115 of 131 partners (88%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Diversity is the softest pillar. At the 16th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Life Sciences is the at-risk domain. World #1,155 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 82% 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: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Win Monash University. World top-7. Monash University is top-215 globally in Physical Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. Stanford University returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 8.6). 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.

405
h-index of the joint research base
1.7M
citations to co-authored work
2.51
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
6,139
co-authored works, 2021-2025
42
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.

Influence26th pctReach33rd pctDiversity16th pctSustained26th pctImpact48th pctInternational66th pctBrokerage25th pct

Illinois Institute of Technology is strongest on international (66th percentile), impact (48th) and reach (33rd). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 115 of 131 partners (88%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Diversity (16th 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% weight26th pct+5.7
Impact18% weight48th pct+8.6
Sustained18% weight26th pct+4.7
Reach16% weight33rd pct+5.3
Diversity16% weight16th pct+2.6
International10% weight66th pct+6.6

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 #1092 for connected research
9/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Illinoiโ€ฆ84
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Chicago56
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins Universโ€ฆ49
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Washingโ€ฆ46
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Northwestern Universiโ€ฆ45
Life Sciences
World #1155 for connected research
3/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Illinoiโ€ฆ29
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Chicago27
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Northwestern Universiโ€ฆ15
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Southerโ€ฆ13
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University13
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #934 for connected research
22/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Chicago344
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Stanford University145
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Pittsbuโ€ฆ133
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan127
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ MIT127
Social Sciences
World #1070 for connected research
10/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Northwestern Universiโ€ฆ37
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Chicago37
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Wisconsโ€ฆ24
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Illinoiโ€ฆ24
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Arizona State Universโ€ฆ21
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 yieldUniversity of ChicUniversity of IlliStanford Universit
High yieldStandardLow yield

Stanford University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 8.6): a consortium waiting to happen. University of Illinois Chicago, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.6: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Chicago382 2.9Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Illinois Chicago190 2.6Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Stanford University138 8.6High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University134 5.6High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan108 4.2Standard
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Xi'an Jiaotong University107 3.0Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Northwestern University107 3.1Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Pittsburgh103 4.7Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Wisconsinโ€“Madison100 3.8Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Cincinnati96 4.6Standard
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 5,546
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 1,504
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 801
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 158
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 151
๐Ÿ‡ญ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Hong Kong SAR 135
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 135
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 130

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Chicago 382
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Illinois Chicago 190
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Stanford University 138
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University 134
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan 108
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Xi'an Jiaotong University 107
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Northwestern University 107
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Pittsburgh 103

The network spans 64 countries and 841 universities, but the top two carry about 82% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Africa 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.

๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฌ 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: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant

๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ 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: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant

๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง King's College London United Kingdom · world top-10

King's College London is top-581 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

๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Queensland Australia · world top-12

The University of Queensland is top-199 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.

IIT Research InstituteChicago Kent College of LawInstitute for Food Safety and Health
EngineeringPhysics and AstronomySocial SciencesComputer Science

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‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Chonnam National UniversitySouth Korea
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Chung-Ang UniversitySouth Korea
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡น Ca' Foscari University of VeniceItaly
๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡ธ Universidad Carlos III de MadridSpain
University of PecsHU
Fluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesMicrogrid Control and OptimizationSmart Grid Energy ManagementLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques

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 Africa 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 Stanford University tie into a consortium concept in Physical Sciences & Engineering.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the diversity gap and the life 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 Illinois Institute of Technology.

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.