Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Rochester Institute of Technology (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
7,422
co-authored works, 5 years
811
partner universities
70
partner countries
412
sustained deep ties
2.98
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
  • Strong on impact and international. Rochester Institute of Technology sits in the 73rd percentile for impact and the 41st for international: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 103 of 117 partners (88%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Influence is the softest pillar. At the 20th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Life Sciences is the at-risk domain. World #1,137 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 76% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win HKU. World top-1. University of Hong Kong is top-127 globally in Physical 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-56 globally in Physical Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. The University of Texas at Austin returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 11.3). 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.

508
h-index of the joint research base
1.9M
citations to co-authored work
2.98
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
7,422
co-authored works, 2021-2025
46
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.

Influence20th pctReach27th pctDiversity31st pctSustained28th pctImpact73rd pctInternational41st pctBrokerage29th pct

Rochester Institute of Technology is strongest on impact (73rd percentile), international (41st) and diversity (31st). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 103 of 117 partners (88%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Influence (20th 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% weight20th pct+4.4
Impact18% weight73rd pct+13.1
Sustained18% weight28th pct+5.0
Reach16% weight27th pct+4.3
Diversity16% weight31st pct+5.0
International10% weight41st pct+4.1

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.

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 #1109 for connected research
7/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Rochestโ€ฆ107
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The Ohio State Univerโ€ฆ21
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University at Buffaloโ€ฆ17
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Cornell University15
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Pittsbuโ€ฆ14
Life Sciences
World #1137 for connected research
5/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Rochestโ€ฆ60
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Cornell University15
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Duke University13
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Iowa9
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Pittsbuโ€ฆ9
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #843 for connected research
30/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The University of Texโ€ฆ194
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Caltech187
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Rochestโ€ฆ139
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Cornell University138
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Pennsylvania State Unโ€ฆ136
Social Sciences
World #917 for connected research
23/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Rochestโ€ฆ42
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Pennsylvania State Unโ€ฆ29
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The University of Texโ€ฆ24
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Marylanโ€ฆ23
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University at Buffaloโ€ฆ21
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 RochThe University of University of Conn
High yieldStandardLow yield

The University of Texas at Austin returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 11.3): a consortium waiting to happen. University of Rochester, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.0: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Rochester294 2.0Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The University of Texas at Austin150 11.3High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ California Institute of Technology134 11.3High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Pennsylvania State University116 8.1High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Cornell University112 10.4High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University106 16.1High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan99 12.0High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Texas A&M University89 12.1High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Colorado Boulder87 11.7High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ George Mason University86 11.9High 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 5,327
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 643
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 495
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 414
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 340
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 242
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 221
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ญ Switzerland 137

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Rochester 294
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The University of Texas at Austin 150
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ California Institute of Technology 134
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Pennsylvania State University 116
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Cornell University 112
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University 106
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan 99
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Texas A&M University 89

The network spans 70 countries and 811 universities, but the top two carry about 76% 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-127 globally in Physical 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-56 globally in Physical 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 Oxford United Kingdom · world top-4

University of Oxford is top-84 globally in Physical 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‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ The University of Queensland Australia · world top-12

The University of Queensland is top-199 globally in Physical 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.

Rochester Institute of Technology CroatiaGreat Lakes Research Consortium
Physics and AstronomyPsychology

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 Fujian Agriculture and Forestry UniversityChina
University of DhakaBD
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ New Mexico State UniversityUnited States
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡น University of SalzburgAustria
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Anhui Medical UniversityChina
Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsHearing Impairment and CommunicationAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchColor Science and Applications

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 The University of Texas at Austin tie into a consortium concept in Physical Sciences & Engineering.

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 Rochester Institute of Technology.

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.