Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for North Dakota 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
8,036
co-authored works, 5 years
783
partner universities
70
partner countries
317
sustained deep ties
2.73
collaboration impact (FWCI)
89%
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 #232 in the world for connected research, with Pharmacology, Toxicology & Pharmaceutics #388, Agricultural & Biological Sciences #419 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on impact and international. North Dakota State University sits in the 60th percentile for impact and the 32nd for international: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 101 of 114 partners (89%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Influence 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 #954 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 83% 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 CUHK. World top-3. Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-218 globally in Life Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. University of Florida returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 6.0). 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.

343
h-index of the joint research base
1.8M
citations to co-authored work
2.73
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
8,036
co-authored works, 2021-2025
40
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.

Influence14th pctReach24th pctDiversity31st pctSustained15th pctImpact60th pctInternational32nd pctBrokerage33rd pct

North Dakota State University is strongest on impact (60th percentile), international (32nd) and diversity (31st). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 101 of 114 partners (89%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Influence (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.

InflImpaSustReacDiveInteEach block is a pillar’s weighted contribution; together they place the university in the global ranked cohort.
Influence22% weight14th pct+3.1
Impact18% weight60th pct+10.8
Sustained18% weight15th pct+2.7
Reach16% weight24th pct+3.8
Diversity16% weight31st pct+5.0
International10% weight32nd pct+3.2

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#1000Veterinary232Pharmacology, Toxicolo…388Agricultural & Biologi…419Energy748Nursing751Business, Management &…801
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

North Dakota State University's strongest connected fields are Veterinary #232, Pharmacology, Toxicology & Pharmaceutics #388, Agricultural & Biological Sciences #419. The portfolio leans on life sciences; Social Sciences, at world #954 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 #951 for connected research
20/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 University of Alabama…49
🇺🇸 University of Minneso…30
🇺🇸 Auburn University30
🇺🇸 University of Nebrask…29
🇦🇺 University of South A…28
Life Sciences
World #616 for connected research
48/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 University of Minneso…132
🇺🇸 University of Nebrask…99
🇺🇸 Washington State Univ…92
🇺🇸 Michigan State Univer…78
🇺🇸 University of Wiscons…70
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #953 for connected research
20/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Iowa State University52
🇺🇸 Purdue University Wes…43
🇺🇸 Pennsylvania State Un…41
National University o…37
🇨🇳 Zhejiang University36
Social Sciences
World #954 for connected research
20/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Kansas State Universi…22
🇺🇸 University of Nebrask…21
🇺🇸 University of Minneso…21
🇺🇸 The University of Tex…18
🇺🇸 University of North C…17
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 NebrUniversity of MinnTexas A&M UniversiUniversity of Flor
High yieldStandardLow yield

University of Florida returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 6.0): a consortium waiting to happen. Virginia Tech, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 1.4: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
🇺🇸 University of Nebraska–Lincoln185 3.6Standard
🇺🇸 University of Minnesota178 3.0Standard
🇺🇸 Purdue University West Lafayette121 3.1Standard
🇺🇸 Iowa State University118 2.6Standard
🇺🇸 Texas A&M University111 2.3Standard
🇺🇸 Washington State University101 3.3Standard
🇺🇸 University of Wisconsin–Madison97 3.3Standard
🇺🇸 Michigan State University96 4.0Standard
🇺🇸 University of Florida88 6.0High yield
🇺🇸 The Ohio State University86 3.3Standard
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 4,395
🇨🇳 China 479
🇨🇦 Canada 302
🇦🇺 Australia 182
🇬🇧 United Kingdom 169
🇧🇷 Brazil 155
🇩🇪 Germany 102
🇮🇹 Italy 92

Anchor partner institutions

🇺🇸 University of Nebraska–Lincoln 185
🇺🇸 University of Minnesota 178
🇺🇸 Purdue University West Lafayette 121
🇺🇸 Iowa State University 118
🇺🇸 Texas A&M University 111
🇺🇸 Washington State University 101
🇺🇸 University of Wisconsin–Madison 97
🇺🇸 Michigan State University 96

The network spans 70 countries and 783 universities, but the top two carry about 83% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Europe white-space (6 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: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant

🇭🇰 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: 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 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: 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.

Aldevron (United States)North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station
Agricultural and Biological SciencesBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular BiologyNursing

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.

🇧🇷 Universidade de Ribeirão PretoBrazil
🇨🇳 Shanghai Ocean UniversityChina
🇵🇱 Wrocław University of Science and TechnologyPoland
🇧🇷 Universidade Federal de PernambucoBrazil
🇺🇸 Portland State UniversityUnited States
Wheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesGenetics and Plant BreedingReproductive Physiology in LivestockFood composition and properties

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 Florida tie into a consortium concept in Life Sciences.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the influence 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 North Dakota 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.