Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for Southwest University (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
35,157
co-authored works, 5 years
913
partner universities
67
partner countries
563
sustained deep ties
2.65
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
  • Agricultural & Biological Sciences is the standout field. Ranked #226 in the world for connected research, with Decision Sciences #298, Computer Science #305 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on influence and impact. Southwest University sits in the 68th percentile for influence and the 56th for impact: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 115 of 132 partners (87%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • International is the softest pillar. At the 21st percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Health & Medicine is the at-risk domain. World #697 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 89% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win University of Oxford. World top-4. University of Oxford is top-28 globally in Life Sciences. Route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program.
  • Win UCL. World top-5. University College London is top-22 globally in Life Sciences. Route: an NSFC / JSPS / A*STAR bilateral programme, or the Human Frontier Science Program.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. University of Electronic Science and Technology of China returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 3.7). 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.

429
h-index of the joint research base
4.7M
citations to co-authored work
2.65
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
35,157
co-authored works, 2021-2025
32
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.

Influence68th pctReach47th pctDiversity22nd pctSustained51st pctImpact56th pctInternational21st pctBrokerage20th pct

Southwest University is strongest on influence (68th percentile), impact (56th) and sustained (51st). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 115 of 132 partners (87%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is International (21st 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.

InflImpaSustReacDiveEach block is a pillar’s weighted contribution; together they place the university in the global ranked cohort.
Influence22% weight68th pct+15.0
Impact18% weight56th pct+10.1
Sustained18% weight51st pct+9.2
Reach16% weight47th pct+7.5
Diversity16% weight22nd pct+3.5
International10% weight21st pct+2.1

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.

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#1000Agricultural & Biologi…226Decision Sciences298Computer Sci.305Neuroscience322Energy364Immunology & Microbiol…378
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

Southwest University's strongest connected fields are Agricultural & Biological Sciences #226, Decision Sciences #298, Computer Science #305. The portfolio leans on life sciences; Health & Medicine, at world #697 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 #697 for connected research
42/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Chinese Academy of Me…256
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University247
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sichuan University242
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Chongqing Medical Uni…238
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Capital Medical Unive…212
Life Sciences
World #55 for connected research
96/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University403
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Chongqing Medical Uni…389
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sichuan University386
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Chinese Academy of Me…378
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Shanghai Jiao Tong Un…335
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #204 for connected research
83/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Chongqing University1,545
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Chinese…323
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Chongqing University …278
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sichuan University251
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University217
Social Sciences
World #470 for connected research
61/100
Top collaboration partners
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Chongqing University122
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Beijing Normal Univer…116
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sichuan University52
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University48
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ East China Normal Uni…48
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 yieldChongqing UniversiHunan Normal UniveUniversity of Elec
High yieldStandardLow yield

University of Electronic Science and Technology of China returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 3.7): a consortium waiting to happen. Hunan Normal University, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 0.4: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Chongqing University1,908 2.9Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Hunan Normal University750 0.4Low yield
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sichuan University684 1.8Low yield
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University643 2.0Low yield
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Chinese Academy of Sciences598 3.4Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Chongqing Medical University535 2.1Low yield
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Zhejiang University490 2.2Standard
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Shanghai Jiao Tong University444 1.7Low yield
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Army Medical University436 1.7Low yield
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Electronic Science and Technology of China400 3.7Standard
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 23,794
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ United States 2,551
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί Australia 861
πŸ‡­πŸ‡° Hong Kong SAR 617
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ United Kingdom 566
πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ Germany 461
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦ Canada 445
πŸ‡«πŸ‡· France 405

Anchor partner institutions

πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Chongqing University 1,908
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Hunan Normal University 750
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Sichuan University 684
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Peking University 643
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ University of Chinese Academy of Sciences 598
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Chongqing Medical University 535
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Zhejiang University 490
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡³ Shanghai Jiao Tong University 444

The network spans 67 countries and 913 universities, but the top two carry about 89% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Europe white-space (0 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‡§ University of Oxford United Kingdom · world top-4

University of Oxford is top-28 globally in Life 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-22 globally in Life 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-47 globally in Life 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‡Ί Monash University Australia · world top-7

Monash University is top-121 globally in Life 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.

State Key Laboratory of Silkworm Genomic Biology
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular BiologyComputer ScienceEngineeringAgricultural and Biological Sciences

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 Florida CollegeUnited States
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Utah State UniversityUnited States
πŸ‡«πŸ‡· UniversitΓ© de ToursFrance
University of DebrecenHU
Ain Shams UniversityEG
Advanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesHigher Education and Teaching MethodsElectrochemical sensors and biosensorsPlant Molecular Biology ResearchChinese history and philosophyAdvanced Nanomaterials in Catalysis

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 University of Oxford 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 University of Electronic Science and Technology of China tie into a consortium concept in Life Sciences.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the international 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 Southwest 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.