Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for IPB University (ID), 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.

◇ Ranked in the Research Collaboration Index
🌍 Asia-Pacific · 391 universities benchmarked
22,865
co-authored works, 5 years
623
partner universities
67
partner countries
207
sustained deep ties
0.98
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 diversity and reach. IPB University sits in the 22nd percentile for diversity and the 8th for reach: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 57 of 65 partners (88%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • International is the softest pillar. At the 3rd percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Health & Medicine is the at-risk domain. World #717 for connected research, far behind the rest of the portfolio: a real gap, not a crown jewel.
  • Network concentration. The top two partner countries (ID and Japan) carry about 71% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win HKU. World top-1. University of Hong Kong is top-181 globally in Life 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-218 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 Göttingen returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 2.0). 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.

180
h-index of the joint research base
0.7M
citations to co-authored work
0.98
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
22,865
co-authored works, 2021-2025
16
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.

Influence5th pctReach8th pctDiversity22nd pctSustained5th pctImpact4th pctInternational3rd pctBrokerage55th pct

IPB University is strongest on diversity (22nd percentile), reach (8th) and influence (5th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 57 of 65 partners (88%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is International (3rd 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% weight5th pct+1.1
Impact18% weight4th pct+0.7
Sustained18% weight5th pct+0.9
Reach16% weight8th pct+1.3
Diversity16% weight22nd pct+3.5
International10% weight3rd pct+0.3

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.

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 #717 for connected research
40/100
Top collaboration partners
University of Indones…155
Universitas Gadjah Ma…81
Padjadjaran University63
Airlangga University50
Hasanuddin University44
Life Sciences
World #35 for connected research
97/100
Top collaboration partners
Universitas Gadjah Ma…167
University of Indones…128
Padjadjaran University128
University of Brawija…111
Hasanuddin University111
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #454 for connected research
62/100
Top collaboration partners
Bandung Institute of …174
University of Indones…166
Universitas Gadjah Ma…112
Universitas Sumatera …94
Padjadjaran University93
Social Sciences
World #194 for connected research
84/100
Top collaboration partners
University of Indones…60
Binus University55
Universitas Gadjah Ma…52
Bandung Institute of …44
Padjadjaran University41
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 IndoUniversitas GadjahUniversity of GöttUniversitas Syiah
High yieldStandardLow yield

University of Göttingen returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 2.0): a consortium waiting to happen. University of Indonesia, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 1.3: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
University of Indonesia465 1.3Low yield
Universitas Gadjah Mada385 1.7Low yield
Bandung Institute of Technology353 1.7Low yield
Padjadjaran University307 1.6Low yield
Airlangga University263 1.7Low yield
🇩🇪 University of Göttingen243 2.0Standard
Universitas Sumatera Utara215 1.8Low yield
Hasanuddin University213 1.8Low yield
University of Brawijaya207 1.5Low yield
Lampung University160 1.4Low 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

ID 4,054
🇯🇵 Japan 483
🇩🇪 Germany 439
🇺🇸 United States 342
🇬🇧 United Kingdom 303
🇦🇺 Australia 289
MY 288
🇫🇷 France 187

Anchor partner institutions

University of Indonesia 465
Universitas Gadjah Mada 385
Bandung Institute of Technology 353
Padjadjaran University 307
Airlangga University 263
🇩🇪 University of Göttingen 243
Universitas Sumatera Utara 215
Hasanuddin University 213

The network spans 67 countries and 623 universities, but the top two carry about 71% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Europe white-space (11 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.

🇭🇰 University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-1

University of Hong Kong is top-181 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

🇭🇰 Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-3

Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-218 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

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

🇦🇺 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: 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.

Agricultural and Biological SciencesEnvironmental 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.

Bandung Institute of TechnologyID
🇯🇵 Jichi Medical UniversityJapan
🇧🇷 Universidade Estadual de LondrinaBrazil
🇮🇳 Savitribai Phule Pune UniversityIndia
🇯🇵 Kyushu Institute of TechnologyJapan
Food and Agricultural SciencesAquatic life and conservationPlant Growth and Agriculture TechniquesMarine and Coastal EcosystemsAgriculture and Agroindustry StudiesSMEs Development and Digital Marketing

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 University of Göttingen tie into a consortium concept in Life Sciences.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the international 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 IPB 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 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.