Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Shandong University of Science and Technology (China), 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.

β—‡ Ranked in the Research Collaboration Index
🌍 Asia-Pacific · 391 universities benchmarked
26,149
co-authored works, 5 years
748
partner universities
57
partner countries
425
sustained deep ties
2.29
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
  • Strong on influence and impact. Shandong University of Science and Technology sits in the 64th percentile for influence and the 38th for impact: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 103 of 116 partners (89%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Diversity is the softest pillar. At the 6th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Health & Medicine is the at-risk domain. World #1,107 for connected research, far behind the rest of the portfolio: a real gap, not a crown jewel.
  • Network concentration. The top two partner countries (China and United States) carry about 90% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win CUHK. World top-3. Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-150 globally in Physical Sciences. Route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program.
  • Win University of Oxford. World top-4. University of Oxford is top-84 globally in Physical Sciences. Route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. Beijing Institute of Technology returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 5.3). 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.

296
h-index of the joint research base
2.1M
citations to co-authored work
2.29
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
26,149
co-authored works, 2021-2025
25
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.

Influence64th pctReach20th pctDiversity6th pctSustained30th pctImpact38th pctInternational10th pctBrokerage61st pct

Shandong University of Science and Technology is strongest on influence (64th percentile), impact (38th) and sustained (30th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 103 of 116 partners (89%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Diversity (6th 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.

InflImpaSustReacEach block is a pillar’s weighted contribution; together they place the university in the global ranked cohort.
Influence22% weight64th pct+14.1
Impact18% weight38th pct+6.8
Sustained18% weight30th pct+5.4
Reach16% weight20th pct+3.2
Diversity16% weight6th pct+1.0
International10% weight10th pct+1.0

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 #1107 for connected research
7/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Shandong University96
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Qingdao University78
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Qingdao University of…57
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Shanghai Jiao Tong Un…56
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Capital Medical Unive…52
Life Sciences
World #1008 for connected research
16/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Shandong University321
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Qingdao University143
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Qingdao University of…104
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sun Yat-sen University102
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Huazhong University o…100
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #88 for connected research
93/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Shandong University1,842
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Qingdao University of…1,201
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of P…817
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Ocean University of C…695
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of M…674
Social Sciences
World #914 for connected research
24/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Shandong University86
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Qingdao University of…55
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Qingdao University48
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Ocean University of C…20
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Beijing Jiaotong Univ…14
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 yieldShandong UniversitQingdao UniversityTsinghua UniversitWuhan University
High yieldStandardLow yield

Beijing Institute of Technology returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 5.3): a consortium waiting to happen. Wuhan University, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 1.8: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Shandong University2,063 2.9Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Qingdao University of Science and Technology1,371 2.1Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Qingdao University868 2.3Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of Petroleum, East China815 1.9Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Ocean University of China745 2.9Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of Mining and Technology655 2.7Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Chinese Academy of Sciences416 2.8Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Tsinghua University307 3.0Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University289 2.5Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Shanghai Jiao Tong University248 2.7Standard
Source: institution-to-institution co-authorship ledger + field-weighted citation impact

Visualisation 4

Your global reach, and where it thins out

Top partner countries

πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China 18,514
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ United States 1,579
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ United Kingdom 624
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί Australia 503
πŸ‡­πŸ‡° Hong Kong SAR 461
SA 199
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦ Canada 198
πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅ Japan 197

Anchor partner institutions

πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Shandong University 2,063
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Qingdao University of Science and Technology 1,371
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Qingdao University 868
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of Petroleum, East China 815
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Ocean University of China 745
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of Mining and Technology 655
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Chinese Academy of Sciences 416
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Tsinghua University 307

The network spans 57 countries and 748 universities, but the top two carry about 90% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Europe white-space (1 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.

πŸ‡­πŸ‡° Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-3

Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-150 globally in Physical Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in your strongest field.

Funding route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program

πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ 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: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program

πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ University College London United Kingdom · world top-5

University College London is top-93 globally in Physical Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in your strongest field.

Funding route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program

πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ University of Cambridge United Kingdom · world top-6

University of Cambridge is top-97 globally in Physical Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in your strongest field.

Funding route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program

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.

Engineering

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.

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ City College of New YorkUnited States
Pontificia Universidad JaverianaCO
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ China University of Petroleum, East ChinaChina
πŸ‡΅πŸ‡± Medical University of LodzPoland
Shiraz University of Medical SciencesIR
Rock Mechanics and ModelingGeomechanics and Mining EngineeringGeoscience and Mining TechnologyCoal Properties and UtilizationHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisStability and Control of Uncertain Systems

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 CUHK 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 Beijing Institute of Technology tie into a consortium concept in Physical Sciences & Engineering.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the diversity 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 Shandong University of Science and 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.