Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for John Brown 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
15,448
co-authored works, 5 years
833
partner universities
69
partner countries
453
sustained deep ties
2.51
collaboration impact (FWCI)
83%
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
  • Economics, Econometrics & Finance is the standout field. Ranked #404 in the world for connected research, with Mathematics #449, Physics & Astronomy #459 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on impact and international. John Brown University sits in the 48th percentile for impact and the 47th for international: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 101 of 122 partners (83%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Diversity is the softest pillar. At the 28th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Physical Sciences & Engineering is the at-risk domain. World #1,104 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 86% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win HKU. World top-1. University of Hong Kong is top-94 globally in Social 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-115 globally in Social Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. Brown University returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 2.9). 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.

431
h-index of the joint research base
1.4M
citations to co-authored work
2.51
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
15,448
co-authored works, 2021-2025
36
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.

Influence42nd pctReach32nd pctDiversity28th pctSustained34th pctImpact48th pctInternational47th pctBrokerage5th pct

John Brown University is strongest on impact (48th percentile), international (47th) and influence (42nd). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 101 of 122 partners (83%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Diversity (28th 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% weight42nd pct+9.2
Impact18% weight48th pct+8.6
Sustained18% weight34th pct+6.1
Reach16% weight32nd pct+5.1
Diversity16% weight28th pct+4.5
International10% weight47th pct+4.7

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#1000Economics, Econometricโ€ฆ404Mathematics449Physics & Astronomy459Decision Sciences562Immunology & Microbiolโ€ฆ571Social Sciences589
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

John Brown University's strongest connected fields are Economics, Econometrics & Finance #404, Mathematics #449, Physics & Astronomy #459. The portfolio leans on social sciences; Physical Sciences & Engineering, at world #1,104 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 #947 for connected research
21/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Brown University524
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University124
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins Universโ€ฆ100
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Yale University62
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ60
Life Sciences
World #1077 for connected research
10/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Brown University296
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Sichuan University88
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Chinese Academy of Meโ€ฆ87
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Sun Yat-sen University86
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Zhejiang University84
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #1104 for connected research
8/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Brown University364
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Caltech235
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Cornell University215
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins Universโ€ฆ213
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Rice University205
Social Sciences
World #757 for connected research
37/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Brown University293
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University120
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan49
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Chicago48
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ48
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 yieldBrown UniversityHarvard UniversityProvidence CollegeUniversity of Mich
High yieldStandardLow yield

Brown University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 2.9): a consortium waiting to happen. Providence College, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 0.6: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Brown University1,013 2.9High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University397 3.2High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Providence College314 0.6Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins University212 2.4High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan165 8.3High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Washington162 2.0Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Stanford University161 3.7High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ New York University161 1.4Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Columbia University148 2.0Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Yale University144 2.8High 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 8,706
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 2,790
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 653
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 369
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 301
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 276
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 204
๐Ÿ‡ฟ๐Ÿ‡ฆ South Africa 141

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Brown University 1,013
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University 397
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Providence College 314
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins University 212
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan 165
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Washington 162
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Stanford University 161
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ New York University 161

The network spans 69 countries and 833 universities, but the top two carry about 86% 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‡ญ๐Ÿ‡ฐ University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-1

University of Hong Kong is top-94 globally in Social 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-115 globally in Social 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-130 globally in Social 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-11 globally in Social 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.

Materials ScienceEngineeringBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular BiologyPhysics and Astronomy

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.

Middle East Technical UniversityTR
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Chongqing Medical UniversityChina
๐Ÿ‡ฏ๐Ÿ‡ต Kanazawa UniversityJapan
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Indian Institute of Science BangaloreIndia
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Baylor UniversityUnited States
Solid-state spectroscopy and crystallographyMagnetic Properties and ApplicationsMagnetic Properties of AlloysSuperconducting Materials and ApplicationsGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesPlanetary Science and Exploration

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 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 Brown University tie into a consortium concept in Social Sciences.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the diversity 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 John Brown 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.