Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Jiangnan 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.

โ—‡ Ranked in the Research Collaboration Index
๐ŸŒ Asia-Pacific · 391 universities benchmarked
34,324
co-authored works, 5 years
866
partner universities
63
partner countries
513
sustained deep ties
2.80
collaboration impact (FWCI)
91%
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
  • Nursing is the standout field. Ranked #7 in the world for connected research, with Materials Science #79, Chemical Engineering #82 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on influence and impact. Jiangnan University sits in the 81st percentile for influence and the 65th for impact: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 140 of 154 partners (91%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Diversity is the softest pillar. At the 14th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Social Sciences is the at-risk domain. World #882 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 91% 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: Wellcome Trust international partnerships or the Gates Foundation (global health).
  • Win UCL. World top-5. University College London is top-22 globally in Life Sciences. Route: Wellcome Trust international partnerships or the Gates Foundation (global health).
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. University of Massachusetts Amherst returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 5.7). 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.

380
h-index of the joint research base
5.5M
citations to co-authored work
2.80
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
34,324
co-authored works, 2021-2025
38
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.

Influence81st pctReach37th pctDiversity14th pctSustained43rd pctImpact65th pctInternational24th pctBrokerage54th pct

Jiangnan University is strongest on influence (81st percentile), impact (65th) and sustained (43rd). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 140 of 154 partners (91%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Diversity (14th 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.

InflImpaSustReacEach block is a pillarโ€™s weighted contribution; together they place the university in the global ranked cohort.
Influence22% weight81st pct+17.8
Impact18% weight65th pct+11.7
Sustained18% weight43rd pct+7.7
Reach16% weight37th pct+5.9
Diversity16% weight14th pct+2.2
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#1000Nursing7Materials Science79Chemical Engineering82
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

Jiangnan University's strongest connected fields are Nursing #7, Materials Science #79, Chemical Engineering #82. The portfolio leans on life sciences; Social Sciences, at world #882 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 #376 for connected research
69/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nanchang University2,692
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nanjing Medical Univeโ€ฆ554
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Soochow University321
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Shanghai Jiao Tong Unโ€ฆ308
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nantong University275
Life Sciences
World #58 for connected research
95/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nanchang University5,496
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nanjing Medical Univeโ€ฆ575
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Zhejiang University454
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Shanghai Jiao Tong Unโ€ฆ440
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Fudan University418
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #186 for connected research
84/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nanchang University2,394
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Tsinghua University405
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Shanghai Jiao Tong Unโ€ฆ321
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nanjing University270
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Soochow University256
Social Sciences
World #882 for connected research
26/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China University of Mโ€ฆ47
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Soochow University30
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Pennsylโ€ฆ26
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nankai University20
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ University of Windsor20
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 yieldNanchang UniversitNanjing Medical UnTsinghua UniversitSun Yat-sen Univer
High yieldStandardLow yield

University of Massachusetts Amherst returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 5.7): a consortium waiting to happen. Sun Yat-sen University, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 1.7: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nanchang University10,296 3.5Standard
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nanjing Medical University1,025 2.2Standard
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Shanghai Jiao Tong University806 3.3Standard
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Soochow University751 2.1Standard
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Jiangsu University581 3.0Standard
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Zhejiang University570 2.3Standard
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nantong University541 2.1Standard
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Fudan University525 2.1Standard
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Yangzhou University517 2.7Standard
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Peking University511 2.0Standard
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‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 33,405
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ United States 2,780
๐Ÿ‡ญ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Hong Kong SAR 912
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 875
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 707
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 619
๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฌ Singapore 458
๐Ÿ‡ฏ๐Ÿ‡ต Japan 211

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nanchang University 10,296
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nanjing Medical University 1,025
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Shanghai Jiao Tong University 806
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Soochow University 751
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Jiangsu University 581
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Zhejiang University 570
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nantong University 541
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Fudan University 525

The network spans 63 countries and 866 universities, but the top two carry about 91% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Europe white-space (3 of the region's 100 leading collaborators) is the clearest gap to close.

In Nursing, the single strongest partnership is ๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nanchang University, with 1187 joint works: the natural anchor for a flagship consortium.
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‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง 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 Nursing.

Funding route: Wellcome Trust international partnerships or the Gates Foundation (global health)

๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University College London United Kingdom · world top-5

University College London is top-22 globally in Life Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Nursing.

Funding route: Wellcome Trust international partnerships or the Gates Foundation (global health)

๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง 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 Nursing.

Funding route: Wellcome Trust international partnerships or the Gates Foundation (global health)

๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ 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 Nursing.

Funding route: Wellcome Trust international partnerships or the Gates Foundation (global health)

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.

State Key Laboratory of Food Science and Technology
Agricultural and Biological SciencesBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular BiologyNursingEngineering

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 Ocean University of ChinaChina
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Manipal Academy of Higher EducationIndia
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ฑ Bar-Ilan UniversityIsrael
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡น TU WienAustria
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Florida CollegeUnited States

Signature joint research

The most-cited work produced with partners, each verifiable.

Proteins in Food SystemsMicrobial Metabolic Engineering and BioproductionFood composition and propertiesEnzyme Catalysis and ImmobilizationEnzyme Production and CharacterizationBiofuel production and bioconversion

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 Massachusetts Amherst tie into a consortium concept in Life Sciences.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the diversity 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 Jiangnan 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.