Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Providence College (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
8,700
co-authored works, 5 years
771
partner universities
64
partner countries
429
sustained deep ties
2.28
collaboration impact (FWCI)
84%
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
  • Medicine is the standout field. Ranked #479 in the world for connected research, with Neuroscience #512, Physics & Astronomy #533 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on influence and impact. Providence College sits in the 51st percentile for influence and the 37th for impact: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 79 of 95 partners (84%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Diversity is the softest pillar. At the 16th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Physical Sciences & Engineering is the at-risk domain. World #1,144 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 86% 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: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Win NUS. World top-2. National University of Singapore is top-85 globally in Health 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 6.8). 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.

447
h-index of the joint research base
2.1M
citations to co-authored work
2.28
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
8,700
co-authored works, 2021-2025
26
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.

Influence51st pctReach23rd pctDiversity16th pctSustained30th pctImpact37th pctInternational32nd pctBrokerage6th pct

Providence College is strongest on influence (51st percentile), impact (37th) and international (32nd). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 79 of 95 partners (84%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Diversity (16th 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% weight51st pct+11.2
Impact18% weight37th pct+6.7
Sustained18% weight30th pct+5.4
Reach16% weight23rd pct+3.7
Diversity16% weight16th pct+2.6
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#1000Medicine479Neuroscience512Physics & Astronomy533Health Professions615Immunology & Microbiolโ€ฆ669Mathematics670
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

Providence College's strongest connected fields are Medicine #479, Neuroscience #512, Physics & Astronomy #533. The portfolio leans on health & medicine; Physical Sciences & Engineering, at world #1,144 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 #641 for connected research
46/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Brown University1,855
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University346
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Washingโ€ฆ330
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins Universโ€ฆ255
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Washington Universityโ€ฆ230
Life Sciences
World #1072 for connected research
10/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Brown University346
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University68
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Washingโ€ฆ51
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Yale University47
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Pennsylโ€ฆ43
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #1144 for connected research
4/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University182
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ164
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ MIT163
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The University of Texโ€ฆ162
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Brown University160
Social Sciences
World #898 for connected research
25/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Brown University437
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University86
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Rhode Iโ€ฆ63
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins Universโ€ฆ34
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan31
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 UniversityUniversity of WashJohn Brown Univers
High yieldStandardLow yield

University of Washington returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 6.8): a consortium waiting to happen. Brown University, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.2: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Brown University2,441 2.2Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University616 4.2Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Washington381 6.8High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins University330 3.9Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Rhode Island323 2.2Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ John Brown University314 0.6Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, San Francisco275 4.3Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Washington University in St. Louis253 3.6Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Yale University241 2.9Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Pennsylvania220 5.0Standard
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 14,961
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 1,003
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 796
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 661
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 425
๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ‡ช Belgium 322
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 262
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 225

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Brown University 2,441
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University 616
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Washington 381
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins University 330
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Rhode Island 323
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ John Brown University 314
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, San Francisco 275
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Washington University in St. Louis 253

The network spans 64 countries and 771 universities, but the top two carry about 86% 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.

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 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-85 globally in Health 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-132 globally in Health 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-110 globally in Health 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.

HELIN Library Consortium
MedicinePsychology

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‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท Catholic University of KoreaSouth Korea
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Second Military Medical UniversityChina
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The University of Texas at El PasoUnited States
MIT UniversityMK
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Augusta UniversityUnited States
Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk

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 Health & Medicine.

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 Providence College.

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.