Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for University of Idaho (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.

◇ Ranked in the Research Collaboration Index
🌍 North America · 251 universities benchmarked
16,937
co-authored works, 5 years
833
partner universities
70
partner countries
354
sustained deep ties
2.45
collaboration impact (FWCI)
91%
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
  • Nursing is the standout field. Ranked #446 in the world for connected research, with Environmental Science #484, Agricultural & Biological Sciences #513 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on impact and reach. University of Idaho sits in the 46th percentile for impact and the 32nd for reach: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 99 of 108 partners (91%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Sustained is the softest pillar. At the 19th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Health & Medicine is the at-risk domain. World #1,094 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 83% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win HKU. World top-1. University of Hong Kong is top-181 globally in Life 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-96 globally in Life Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 7.7). 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.

425
h-index of the joint research base
2.1M
citations to co-authored work
2.45
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
16,937
co-authored works, 2021-2025
38
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.

Influence24th pctReach32nd pctDiversity31st pctSustained19th pctImpact46th pctInternational26th pctBrokerage61st pct

University of Idaho is strongest on impact (46th percentile), reach (32nd) and diversity (31st). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 99 of 108 partners (91%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Sustained (19th 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 pillar’s weighted contribution; together they place the university in the global ranked cohort.
Influence22% weight24th pct+5.3
Impact18% weight46th pct+8.3
Sustained18% weight19th pct+3.4
Reach16% weight32nd pct+5.1
Diversity16% weight31st pct+5.0
International10% weight26th pct+2.6

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#1000Nursing446Environmental Sci.484Agricultural & Biologi…513Earth & Planetary Scie…624Chemical Engineering726Arts & Humanities750
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

University of Idaho's strongest connected fields are Nursing #446, Environmental Science #484, Agricultural & Biological Sciences #513. The portfolio leans on life sciences; Health & Medicine, at world #1,094 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 #1094 for connected research
8/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Washington State Univ…77
🇺🇸 University of Washing…47
🇺🇸 University of Florida31
🇨🇦 University of Saskatc…26
🇺🇸 Colorado State Univer…20
Life Sciences
World #742 for connected research
38/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Washington State Univ…192
🇺🇸 Oregon State Universi…71
🇺🇸 University of Wiscons…59
🇺🇸 University of Kentucky52
🇺🇸 University of Califor…52
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #895 for connected research
25/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Icahn School of Medic…8,477
🇺🇸 University of Wiscons…222
🇺🇸 Washington State Univ…125
🇺🇸 Michigan State Univer…101
🇺🇸 Oregon State Universi…84
Social Sciences
World #1009 for connected research
16/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Washington State Univ…59
🇺🇸 University of Florida26
🇺🇸 University of Wyoming19
🇺🇸 Indiana University18
🇺🇸 University of Wiscons…17
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 yieldIcahn School of MeWashington State U
High yieldStandardLow yield

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 7.7): a consortium waiting to happen. Washington State University, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.2: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
🇺🇸 Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai489 7.7High yield
🇺🇸 Washington State University401 2.2Low yield
🇺🇸 University of Wisconsin–Madison279 4.3Standard
🇺🇸 Michigan State University161 4.4Standard
🇺🇸 Oregon State University149 5.5High yield
🇺🇸 University of Florida129 3.5Standard
🇺🇸 University of Wyoming120 2.5Standard
🇺🇸 University of Washington105 2.9Standard
🇺🇸 Colorado State University101 3.6Standard
🇺🇸 Virginia Tech100 3.2Standard
Source: institution-to-institution co-authorship ledger + field-weighted citation impact

Visualisation 4

Your global reach, and where it thins out

Top partner countries

🇺🇸 United States 6,051
🇨🇳 China 463
🇬🇧 United Kingdom 302
🇨🇦 Canada 265
🇫🇷 France 246
🇩🇪 Germany 200
🇦🇺 Australia 199
🇧🇷 Brazil 151

Anchor partner institutions

🇺🇸 Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai 489
🇺🇸 Washington State University 401
🇺🇸 University of Wisconsin–Madison 279
🇺🇸 Michigan State University 161
🇺🇸 Oregon State University 149
🇺🇸 University of Florida 129
🇺🇸 University of Wyoming 120
🇺🇸 University of Washington 105

The network spans 70 countries and 833 universities, but the top two carry about 83% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Europe white-space (8 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.

🇭🇰 University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-1

University of Hong Kong is top-181 globally in Life 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

🇸🇬 National University of Singapore Singapore · world top-2

National University of Singapore is top-96 globally in Life 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

🇭🇰 Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-3

Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-218 globally in Life 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

🇬🇧 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: 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.

Idaho Space Grant ConsortiumRocky Mountain Advanced Computing Consortium
Earth and Planetary SciencesPhysics and AstronomyEnvironmental Science

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.

🇬🇧 University of WalesUnited Kingdom
🇫🇷 Université de Picardie Jules VerneFrance
🇧🇷 Universidade Federal FluminenseBrazil
National Central UniversityTW
🇨🇳 Hangzhou Dianzi UniversityChina
Earthquake Detection and AnalysisSeismic Waves and AnalysisIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsMethane Hydrates and Related PhenomenaGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFire effects on ecosystems

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 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 Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai tie into a consortium concept in Life Sciences.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the sustained 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 University of Idaho.

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.