Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Montana State 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.

◇ Ranked in the Research Collaboration Index
🌍 North America · 251 universities benchmarked
8,297
co-authored works, 5 years
806
partner universities
69
partner countries
448
sustained deep ties
2.79
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
  • Veterinary is the standout field. Ranked #253 in the world for connected research, with Physics & Astronomy #358, Environmental Science #377 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on impact and international. Montana State University sits in the 64th percentile for impact and the 38th for international: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 107 of 122 partners (88%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Influence is the softest pillar. At the 22nd percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Health & Medicine is the at-risk domain. World #1,056 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 United Kingdom) carry about 80% 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: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Win NUS. World top-2. National University of Singapore is top-96 globally in Life Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. University of Washington returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 7.9). 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.

531
h-index of the joint research base
2.9M
citations to co-authored work
2.79
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
8,297
co-authored works, 2021-2025
42
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.

Influence22nd pctReach27th pctDiversity28th pctSustained33rd pctImpact64th pctInternational38th pctBrokerage27th pct

Montana State University is strongest on impact (64th percentile), international (38th) and sustained (33rd). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 107 of 122 partners (88%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Influence (22nd 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 pillar’s weighted contribution; together they place the university in the global ranked cohort.
Influence22% weight22nd pct+4.8
Impact18% weight64th pct+11.5
Sustained18% weight33rd pct+5.9
Reach16% weight27th pct+4.3
Diversity16% weight28th pct+4.5
International10% weight38th pct+3.8

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#1000Veterinary253Physics & Astronomy358Environmental Sci.377Agricultural & Biologi…456Earth & Planetary Scie…521Social Sciences814
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

Montana State University's strongest connected fields are Veterinary #253, Physics & Astronomy #358, Environmental Science #377. The portfolio leans on life sciences; Health & Medicine, at world #1,056 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 #1056 for connected research
12/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Texas A&M University47
🇺🇸 Cornell University37
🇺🇸 University of Washing…34
🇦🇺 Griffith University30
🇺🇸 Michigan State Univer…29
Life Sciences
World #900 for connected research
25/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 North Dakota State Un…52
🇺🇸 Washington State Univ…52
🇺🇸 Cornell University41
🇺🇸 Texas A&M University40
🇺🇸 Colorado State Univer…37
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #925 for connected research
23/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 University of Colorad…163
🇺🇸 University of Califor…153
🇺🇸 Caltech142
🇺🇸 University of Washing…140
🇺🇸 Columbia University127
Social Sciences
World #1053 for connected research
12/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Colorado State Univer…31
🇺🇸 University of Washing…27
🇺🇸 University of Wiscons…22
🇺🇸 University of Pittsbu…19
🇺🇸 Iowa State University18
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 WashUniversity of ColoTexas A&M UniversiOregon State Unive
High yieldStandardLow yield

University of Washington returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 7.9): a consortium waiting to happen. Texas A&M University, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.5: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
🇺🇸 University of Washington165 7.9High yield
🇺🇸 University of Colorado Boulder158 8.4High yield
🇺🇸 University of California, Berkeley144 8.2High yield
🇺🇸 Texas A&M University124 2.5Low yield
🇺🇸 University of Montana122 3.0Standard
🇺🇸 Colorado State University120 4.0Standard
🇺🇸 Pennsylvania State University120 8.6High yield
🇺🇸 University of Wisconsin–Madison114 5.0Standard
🇺🇸 Cornell University114 10.1High yield
🇺🇸 University of Florida113 9.0High 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

🇺🇸 United States 6,785
🇬🇧 United Kingdom 571
🇦🇺 Australia 438
🇨🇦 Canada 433
🇫🇷 France 351
🇮🇹 Italy 227
🇨🇳 China 215
🇩🇪 Germany 213

Anchor partner institutions

🇺🇸 University of Washington 165
🇺🇸 University of Colorado Boulder 158
🇺🇸 University of California, Berkeley 144
🇺🇸 Texas A&M University 124
🇺🇸 University of Montana 122
🇺🇸 Colorado State University 120
🇺🇸 Pennsylvania State University 120
🇺🇸 University of Wisconsin–Madison 114

The network spans 69 countries and 806 universities, but the top two carry about 80% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Middle East 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.

🇭🇰 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: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant

🇸🇬 National University of Singapore Singapore · world top-2

National University of Singapore is top-96 globally in Life 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

🇬🇧 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 your strongest field.

Funding route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant

🇬🇧 University of Edinburgh United Kingdom · world top-9

University of Edinburgh is top-86 globally in Life 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.

Museum of the RockiesRocky Mountain Advanced Computing ConsortiumMontana State University Foundation
Environmental SciencePhysics 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.

🇩🇪 University of AugsburgGermany
🇨🇳 Donghua UniversityChina
🇨🇦 Polytechnique MontréalCanada
Universidad de Santiago de ChileCL
🇨🇳 Beijing Jiaotong UniversityChina
Wildlife Ecology and ConservationRangeland and Wildlife ManagementMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics

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 Middle East 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 Washington tie into a consortium concept in Life Sciences.

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 Montana State 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.