Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur (India), 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 Asia-Pacific · 391 universities benchmarked
23,099
co-authored works, 5 years
851
partner universities
66
partner countries
428
sustained deep ties
2.10
collaboration impact (FWCI)
92%
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 #233 in the world for connected research, with Chemistry #429, Energy #502 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on reach and impact. Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur sits in the 34th percentile for reach and the 30th for impact: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 57 of 62 partners (92%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Influence is the softest pillar. At the 17th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Health & Medicine is the at-risk domain. World #941 for connected research, far behind the rest of the portfolio: a real gap, not a crown jewel.
  • Network concentration. The top two partner countries (India and United States) carry about 62% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win HKU. World top-1. University of Hong Kong is top-127 globally in Physical Sciences. Route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program.
  • Win CUHK. World top-3. Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-150 globally in Physical Sciences. Route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. University of Bradford returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 12.3). 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.

397
h-index of the joint research base
3.5M
citations to co-authored work
2.10
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
23,099
co-authored works, 2021-2025
34
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.

Influence17th pctReach34th pctDiversity20th pctSustained30th pctImpact30th pctInternational24th pctBrokerage85th pct

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur is strongest on reach (34th percentile), impact (30th) and sustained (30th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 57 of 62 partners (92%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Influence (17th 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% weight17th pct+3.7
Impact18% weight30th pct+5.4
Sustained18% weight30th pct+5.4
Reach16% weight34th pct+5.4
Diversity16% weight20th pct+3.2
International10% weight24th pct+2.4

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#1000Chemical Engineering233Chemistry429Energy502Earth & Planetary Scieโ€ฆ511Materials Science512Computer Sci.546
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur's strongest connected fields are Chemical Engineering #233, Chemistry #429, Energy #502. The portfolio leans on physical sciences & engineering; Health & Medicine, at world #941 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 #941 for connected research
21/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Tโ€ฆ25
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ All India Institute oโ€ฆ23
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง UCL17
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Sโ€ฆ17
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Banaras Hindu Universโ€ฆ17
Life Sciences
World #715 for connected research
40/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Jadavpur University37
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Banaras Hindu Universโ€ฆ19
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ University of Calcutta17
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Tโ€ฆ14
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Tโ€ฆ14
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #136 for connected research
89/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Sโ€ฆ244
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Tโ€ฆ236
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Tโ€ฆ198
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Tโ€ฆ186
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Jadavpur University178
Social Sciences
World #713 for connected research
40/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Bradford43
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Tโ€ฆ29
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Tโ€ฆ22
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ SRM Institute of Scieโ€ฆ19
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Tโ€ฆ18
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 yieldIndian Institute oIndian Institute oIndian Institute o
High yieldStandardLow yield

University of Bradford returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 12.3): a consortium waiting to happen. Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 1.6: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Technology Delhi235 2.6Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Science Bangalore233 1.6Low yield
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Technology Bombay220 1.9Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Jadavpur University199 1.9Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Banaras Hindu University174 2.3Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur169 2.1Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee169 2.4Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Technology Madras148 2.9Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ University of Calcutta136 2.0Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ SRM Institute of Science and Technology116 2.6Standard
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‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ India 2,395
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ United States 1,394
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 720
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 381
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 380
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 312
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 258
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 255

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Technology Delhi 235
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Science Bangalore 233
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Technology Bombay 220
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Jadavpur University 199
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Banaras Hindu University 174
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur 169
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee 169
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Technology Madras 148

The network spans 66 countries and 851 universities, but the top two carry about 62% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives.

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-127 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

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

Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-150 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

๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง 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: the Human Frontier Science Program or a Belmont Forum collaborative-research action

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: the Human Frontier Science Program or a Belmont Forum collaborative-research action

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.

Materials 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.

๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Henan Normal UniversityChina
National Research Tomsk State UniversityRU
Pontificia Universidad Catรณlica del PerรบPE
๐Ÿ‡ต๐Ÿ‡ฑ University of Wrocล‚awPoland
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Xinjiang UniversityChina
Polymer Nanocomposites and PropertiesFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsComposite Structure Analysis and OptimizationConducting polymers and applicationsAluminum Alloys Composites PropertiesPolymer crystallization and properties

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 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 Bradford tie into a consortium concept in Physical Sciences & Engineering.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the influence 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 Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur.

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.