Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Miami 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
7,398
co-authored works, 5 years
767
partner universities
66
partner countries
368
sustained deep ties
2.59
collaboration impact (FWCI)
87%
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
  • Decision Sciences is the standout field. Ranked #304 in the world for connected research, with Business, Management & Accounting #496, Social Sciences #567 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on impact and international. Miami University sits in the 53rd percentile for impact and the 36th for international: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 119 of 136 partners (87%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Influence is the softest pillar. At the 19th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Life Sciences is the at-risk domain. World #1,063 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 79% 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. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 22.6). 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.

376
h-index of the joint research base
1.5M
citations to co-authored work
2.59
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
7,398
co-authored works, 2021-2025
35
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.

Influence19th pctReach22nd pctDiversity20th pctSustained21st pctImpact53rd pctInternational36th pctBrokerage24th pct

Miami University is strongest on impact (53rd percentile), international (36th) and reach (22nd). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 119 of 136 partners (87%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Influence (19th 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% weight19th pct+4.2
Impact18% weight53rd pct+9.5
Sustained18% weight21st pct+3.8
Reach16% weight22nd pct+3.5
Diversity16% weight20th pct+3.2
International10% weight36th pct+3.6

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.

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#1000Decision Sciences304Business, Management &โ€ฆ496Social Sciences567Health Professions627Psychology635Earth & Planetary Scieโ€ฆ654
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

Miami University's strongest connected fields are Decision Sciences #304, Business, Management & Accounting #496, Social Sciences #567. The portfolio leans on social sciences; Life Sciences, at world #1,063 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 #1029 for connected research
14/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Miami113
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ85
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Pennsylvania State Unโ€ฆ50
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Emory University24
University of Nigeria22
Life Sciences
World #1063 for connected research
11/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Rutgers, The State Unโ€ฆ48
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Jiangnan University45
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nanchang University40
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Miami26
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida23
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #1052 for connected research
12/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The Ohio State Univerโ€ฆ107
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Colorado State Univerโ€ฆ81
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Miami58
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Wuhan University40
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ญ ETH Zurich32
Social Sciences
World #699 for connected research
42/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Miami89
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ63
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Marylanโ€ฆ47
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Cincinnโ€ฆ45
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Indiana University39
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 MiamUniversity of CaliRutgers, The StateUniversity of Mary
High yieldStandardLow yield

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 22.6): a consortium waiting to happen. University of Miami, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 1.4: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Miami228 1.4Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California San Diego148 2.2Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Pennsylvania State University110 2.8Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Cincinnati96 2.0Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey92 22.6High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The Ohio State University80 3.2Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida77 5.9High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Indiana University72 2.3Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ UNSW Sydney69 3.1Standard
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Korea University of Science and Technology69 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

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ United States 4,491
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 496
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 316
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 302
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 290
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 146
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 130
๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ‡ท Brazil 107

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Miami 228
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California San Diego 148
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Pennsylvania State University 110
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Cincinnati 96
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 92
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The Ohio State University 80
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida 77
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Indiana University 72

The network spans 66 countries and 767 universities, but the top two carry about 79% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Europe white-space (8 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.

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 Cambridge United Kingdom · world top-6

University of Cambridge is top-35 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.

Hubbard Brook Long Term Ecological ResearchMcMurdo Dry Valleys Long Term Ecological Research
Earth and Planetary SciencesHealth ProfessionsPsychologyAgricultural and Biological 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.

๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Harbin Engineering UniversityChina
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Xuzhou Medical CollegeChina
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of MemphisUnited States
Airlangga UniversityID
Marmara UniversityTR
Geological and Geochemical AnalysisGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Developmentearthquake and tectonic studiesPlant and animal studiesCorporate Finance and Governance

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 Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey tie into a consortium concept in Social Sciences.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the influence 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 Miami 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.