Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Oregon Health & Science University (United States), a Gold-band university.  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— Gold standing · Research Collaboration Index
๐ŸŒ North America · 251 universities benchmarked
33,574
co-authored works, 5 years
959
partner universities
78
partner countries
666
sustained deep ties
3.19
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
  • Dentistry is the standout field. Ranked #56 in the world for connected research, with Decision Sciences #65, Health Professions #66 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on influence and impact. Oregon Health & Science University sits in the 86th percentile for influence and the 82nd for impact: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 117 of 135 partners (87%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Reach is the softest pillar. At the 55th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Physical Sciences & Engineering is the at-risk domain. World #1,118 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 Germany) carry about 84% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win HKU. World top-1. University of Hong Kong is top-146 globally in Health Sciences. Route: Wellcome Trust international partnerships or the Gates Foundation (global health).
  • Win NUS. World top-2. National University of Singapore is top-85 globally in Health Sciences. Route: Wellcome Trust international partnerships or the Gates Foundation (global health).
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. Harvard University returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 13.0). 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.

951
h-index of the joint research base
12.4M
citations to co-authored work
3.19
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
33,574
co-authored works, 2021-2025
66
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.

Influence86th pctReach55th pctDiversity71st pctSustained63rd pctImpact82nd pctInternational56th pctBrokerage47th pct

Oregon Health & Science University is strongest on influence (86th percentile), impact (82nd) and diversity (71st). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 117 of 135 partners (87%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Reach (55th 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 Gold band worldwide.
Influence22% weight86th pct+18.9
Impact18% weight82nd pct+14.8
Sustained18% weight63rd pct+11.3
Reach16% weight55th pct+8.8
Diversity16% weight71st pct+11.4
International10% weight56th pct+5.6

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#1000Dentistry56Decision Sciences65Health Professions66Nursing80Neuroscience99
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

Oregon Health & Science University's strongest connected fields are Dentistry #56, Decision Sciences #65, Health Professions #66. The portfolio leans on health & medicine; Physical Sciences & Engineering, at world #1,118 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 #122 for connected research
90/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Pennsylโ€ฆ2,112
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan2,067
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Arizona1,429
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Washingโ€ฆ1,344
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ1,315
Life Sciences
World #396 for connected research
67/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University348
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Washingโ€ฆ311
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Stanford University283
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ264
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Pennsylโ€ฆ226
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #1118 for connected research
6/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ784
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Stanford University757
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ727
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Washington State Univโ€ฆ708
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ North Carolina State โ€ฆ701
Social Sciences
World #881 for connected research
26/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Portland State Univerโ€ฆ198
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Washingโ€ฆ155
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan144
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins Universโ€ฆ142
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University141
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 MichUniversity of PennHarvard UniversityUniversity of Wรผrz
High yieldStandardLow yield

Harvard University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 13.0): a consortium waiting to happen. University of Michigan, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.7: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan2,249 2.7Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Pennsylvania2,215 3.5Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Stanford University2,096 6.0Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Washington1,748 4.7Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, San Francisco1,564 5.1Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California San Diego1,522 5.4Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, Los Angeles1,511 6.1Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University1,505 13.0High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Arizona1,476 1.2Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins University1,243 12.9High 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 57,048
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 2,704
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 2,549
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 2,511
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 2,399
๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ‡ท Brazil 1,556
๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ช Sweden 1,449
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 1,251

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan 2,249
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Pennsylvania 2,215
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Stanford University 2,096
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Washington 1,748
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, San Francisco 1,564
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California San Diego 1,522
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, Los Angeles 1,511
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University 1,505

The network spans 78 countries and 959 universities, but the top two carry about 84% 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-146 globally in Health Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Dentistry.

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

๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฌ National University of Singapore Singapore · world top-2

National University of Singapore is top-85 globally in Health Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Dentistry.

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

๐Ÿ‡ญ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-3

Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-132 globally in Health Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Dentistry.

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

๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Edinburgh United Kingdom · world top-9

University of Edinburgh is top-147 globally in Health Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Dentistry.

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.

Oregon National Primate Research CenterShriners Hospitals for Children - PortlandVollum InstituteSalem HospitalPortland VA Medical CenterOregon Health and Science University HospitalDoernbecher Children's HospitalOHSU Knight Cancer Institute
Environmental ScienceEarth and Planetary SciencesPhysics and AstronomyNeuroscience

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 MalayaMY
Qatar UniversityQA
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Virginia TechUnited States
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Huazhong University of Science and TechnologyChina
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท Universitรฉ de LorraineFrance
Methane Hydrates and Related PhenomenaSeismic Waves and AnalysisIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsEarthquake Detection and AnalysisNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchContact Dermatitis and Allergies

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 Harvard University tie into a consortium concept in Health & Medicine.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the reach 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 Oregon Health & Science 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.