Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for University of Miami (United States), a Gold-band university.  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.

● Gold standing · Research Collaboration Index
🌍 North America · 251 universities benchmarked
41,277
co-authored works, 5 years
1,114
partner universities
80
partner countries
924
sustained deep ties
2.65
collaboration impact (FWCI)
90%
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
  • Biochemistry, Genetics & Molecular Biology is the standout field. Ranked #111 in the world for connected research, with Medicine #128, Neuroscience #130 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on diversity and influence. University of Miami sits in the 90th percentile for diversity and the 88th for influence: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 177 of 196 partners (90%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • International is the softest pillar. At the 51st percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Physical Sciences & Engineering is the at-risk domain. World #779 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 82% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win HKU. World top-1. University of Hong Kong is top-146 globally in Health 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-85 globally in Health Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. Stanford University returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 5.6). 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.

911
h-index of the joint research base
14.0M
citations to co-authored work
2.65
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
41,277
co-authored works, 2021-2025
67
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.

Influence88th pctReach86th pctDiversity90th pctSustained88th pctImpact56th pctInternational51st pctBrokerage80th pct

University of Miami is strongest on diversity (90th percentile), influence (88th) and sustained (88th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 177 of 196 partners (90%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is International (51st 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 Gold band worldwide.
Influence22% weight88th pct+19.4
Impact18% weight56th pct+10.1
Sustained18% weight88th pct+15.8
Reach16% weight86th pct+13.8
Diversity16% weight90th pct+14.4
International10% weight51st pct+5.1

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#1000Biochem. & Mol. Biology111Medicine128Neuroscience130Business, Management &…138Veterinary153Immunology & Microbiol…176
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

University of Miami's strongest connected fields are Biochemistry, Genetics & Molecular Biology #111, Medicine #128, Neuroscience #130. The portfolio leans on health & medicine; Physical Sciences & Engineering, at world #779 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 #58 for connected research
95/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Harvard University1,336
🇺🇸 Johns Hopkins Univers…1,320
🇺🇸 Emory University1,103
🇺🇸 University of Califor…995
🇺🇸 University of Pennsyl…945
Life Sciences
World #281 for connected research
76/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Harvard University414
🇺🇸 University of Pennsyl…289
🇺🇸 Case Western Reserve …273
🇺🇸 Johns Hopkins Univers…262
🇺🇸 Icahn School of Medic…248
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #779 for connected research
35/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Florida International…267
🇺🇸 University of Washing…262
🇺🇸 University of Colorad…213
🇺🇸 University of Florida166
🇺🇸 University of Califor…165
Social Sciences
World #455 for connected research
62/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Florida International…196
🇺🇸 Harvard University195
🇺🇸 Johns Hopkins Univers…158
🇺🇸 University of North C…134
🇺🇸 University of Florida129
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 yieldHarvard UniversityJohns Hopkins UnivUniversity of NortStanford Universit
High yieldStandardLow yield

Stanford University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 5.6): a consortium waiting to happen. Florida International University, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.2: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
🇺🇸 Harvard University1,765 5.6Standard
🇺🇸 Johns Hopkins University1,588 3.8Standard
🇺🇸 Emory University1,277 4.3Standard
🇺🇸 University of Washington1,234 5.0Standard
🇺🇸 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill1,194 3.0Standard
🇺🇸 University of California, San Francisco1,167 4.9Standard
🇺🇸 University of Pennsylvania1,166 5.5Standard
🇺🇸 Cornell University1,139 4.8Standard
🇺🇸 Washington University in St. Louis1,067 4.5Standard
🇺🇸 Stanford University1,054 5.6Standard
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 56,453
🇨🇳 China 4,270
🇬🇧 United Kingdom 3,022
🇨🇦 Canada 2,947
🇩🇪 Germany 2,197
🇮🇹 Italy 2,182
🇫🇷 France 1,649
🇦🇺 Australia 1,428

Anchor partner institutions

🇺🇸 Harvard University 1,765
🇺🇸 Johns Hopkins University 1,588
🇺🇸 Emory University 1,277
🇺🇸 University of Washington 1,234
🇺🇸 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 1,194
🇺🇸 University of California, San Francisco 1,167
🇺🇸 University of Pennsylvania 1,166
🇺🇸 Cornell University 1,139

The network spans 80 countries and 1,114 universities, but the top two carry about 82% 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.

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

University of Hong Kong is top-146 globally in Health Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Biochemistry, Genetics & Molecular Biology.

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-85 globally in Health Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Biochemistry, Genetics & Molecular Biology.

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-132 globally in Health Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Biochemistry, Genetics & Molecular Biology.

Funding route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant

🇦🇺 Monash University Australia · world top-7

Monash University is top-43 globally in Health Sciences. You have no joint publications yet, and it is a natural, fundable bridge in Biochemistry, Genetics & Molecular Biology.

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.

Jackson Memorial HospitalJohn F. Kennedy Medical CenterJackson Health SystemUniversity of Miami Health SystemUniversity of Miami HospitalWest Palm Beach VA Medical CenterMiami VA Healthcare SystemFrost Institute for Data Science & Computing
Earth and Planetary SciencesMedicineEnvironmental SciencePsychology

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.

🇨🇦 Queen's UniversityCanada
🇫🇷 Aix-Marseille UniversitéFrance
🇺🇸 Stony Brook UniversityUnited States
🇺🇸 University of California, Santa BarbaraUnited States
🇬🇧 London School of Hygiene & Tropical MedicineUnited Kingdom
Oceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesGlaucoma and retinal disordersHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsClimate variability and modelsChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

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 Stanford University tie into a consortium concept in Health & Medicine.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the international gap and the physical sciences & engineering 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 Miami.

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.