Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Southern Methodist 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.

โ—‡ Ranked in the Research Collaboration Index
๐ŸŒ North America · 251 universities benchmarked
6,248
co-authored works, 5 years
761
partner universities
65
partner countries
399
sustained deep ties
3.83
collaboration impact (FWCI)
82%
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
  • Physics & Astronomy is the standout field. Ranked #280 in the world for connected research, with Earth & Planetary Sciences #406, Business, Management & Accounting #484 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on impact and international. Southern Methodist University sits in the 96th percentile for impact and the 66th for international: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 127 of 155 partners (82%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Diversity is the softest pillar. At the 18th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Life Sciences is the at-risk domain. World #1,172 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 72% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win NUS. World top-2. National University of Singapore is top-115 globally in Social Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Win Monash University. World top-7. Monash University is top-52 globally in Social Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. UCL returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 16.8). 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.

493
h-index of the joint research base
2.7M
citations to co-authored work
3.83
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
6,248
co-authored works, 2021-2025
54
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.

Influence21st pctReach22nd pctDiversity18th pctSustained25th pctImpact96th pctInternational66th pctBrokerage3rd pct

Southern Methodist University is strongest on impact (96th percentile), international (66th) and sustained (25th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 127 of 155 partners (82%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Diversity (18th 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% weight21st pct+4.6
Impact18% weight96th pct+17.3
Sustained18% weight25th pct+4.5
Reach16% weight22nd pct+3.5
Diversity16% weight18th pct+2.9
International10% weight66th pct+6.6

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#1000Physics & Astronomy280Earth & Planetary Scieโ€ฆ406Business, Management &โ€ฆ484Decision Sciences530Computer Sci.687Psychology707
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

Southern Methodist University's strongest connected fields are Physics & Astronomy #280, Earth & Planetary Sciences #406, Business, Management & Accounting #484. The portfolio leans on social sciences; Life Sciences, at world #1,172 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 #1160 for connected research
3/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University13
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ13
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Indiana University13
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The University of Texโ€ฆ13
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Washingโ€ฆ12
Life Sciences
World #1172 for connected research
2/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Nanjing Agricultural โ€ฆ28
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Tianjin Medical Univeโ€ฆ28
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Fujian Medical Univerโ€ฆ27
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Emory University27
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Shanghai Jiao Tong Unโ€ฆ27
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #1050 for connected research
12/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง UCL540
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan519
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Stanford University519
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท Universitรฉ Paris-Saclโ€ฆ506
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Pittsbuโ€ฆ500
Social Sciences
World #833 for connected research
30/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Wisconsโ€ฆ46
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The University of Texโ€ฆ39
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Texas A&M University38
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Chicago37
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of North Tโ€ฆ34
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 yieldUCLUniversity of MichUniversity of ChicHarvard University
High yieldStandardLow yield

UCL returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 16.8): a consortium waiting to happen. University of Chicago, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 7.2: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University College London160 16.8High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan160 17.8High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The Ohio State University143 9.5High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Stanford University143 15.6High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, Berkeley128 18.7High yield
Universidad Nacional Autรณnoma de Mรฉxico127 19.4High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Pittsburgh116 21.1High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Chicago112 7.2High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The University of Texas at Dallas111 8.1High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University109 21.8High 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 5,206
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 919
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 736
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 561
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 315
๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡ธ Spain 305
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 250
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 169

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University College London 160
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan 160
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Stanford University 143
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The Ohio State University 143
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, Berkeley 128
Universidad Nacional Autรณnoma de Mรฉxico 127
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Pittsburgh 116
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Chicago 112

The network spans 65 countries and 761 universities, but the top two carry about 72% 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‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฌ National University of Singapore Singapore · world top-2

National University of Singapore is top-115 globally in Social 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 Monash University Australia · world top-7

Monash University is top-52 globally in Social 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 King's College London United Kingdom · world top-10

King's College London is top-48 globally in Social 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-99 globally in Social 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.

Physics and AstronomyBusiness, Management and Accounting

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‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Loyola University ChicagoUnited States
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Beijing University of Chemical TechnologyChina
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡น Johannes Kepler University of LinzAustria
๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡ธ Universidad de OviedoSpain
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Northeastern UniversityChina
Particle physics theoretical and experimental studiesHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchQuantum Chromodynamics and Particle InteractionsParticle Detector Development and PerformanceCorporate Finance and GovernanceDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena

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 NUS 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 UCL tie into a consortium concept in Social Sciences.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the diversity 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 Southern Methodist 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.