Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for University of Mississippi (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
9,384
co-authored works, 5 years
881
partner universities
79
partner countries
456
sustained deep ties
3.04
collaboration impact (FWCI)
83%
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
  • Pharmacology, Toxicology & Pharmaceutics is the standout field. Ranked #243 in the world for connected research, with Physics & Astronomy #451, Business, Management & Accounting #483 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on diversity and impact. University of Mississippi sits in the 80th percentile for diversity and the 75th for impact: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 107 of 129 partners (83%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Influence is the softest pillar. At the 26th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Physical Sciences & Engineering is the at-risk domain. World #1,023 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 United Kingdom) carry about 82% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win HKU. World top-1. University of Hong Kong is top-94 globally in Social 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-115 globally in Social Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. Michigan State University returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 12.4). 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.

517
h-index of the joint research base
3.0M
citations to co-authored work
3.04
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
9,384
co-authored works, 2021-2025
56
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.

Influence26th pctReach40th pctDiversity80th pctSustained35th pctImpact75th pctInternational41st pctBrokerage5th pct

University of Mississippi is strongest on diversity (80th percentile), impact (75th) and international (41st). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 107 of 129 partners (83%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Influence (26th 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% weight26th pct+5.7
Impact18% weight75th pct+13.5
Sustained18% weight35th pct+6.3
Reach16% weight40th pct+6.4
Diversity16% weight80th pct+12.8
International10% weight41st pct+4.1

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#1000Pharmacology, Toxicoloโ€ฆ243Physics & Astronomy451Business, Management &โ€ฆ483Medicine491Economics, Econometricโ€ฆ678Biochem. & Mol. Biology683
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

University of Mississippi's strongest connected fields are Pharmacology, Toxicology & Pharmaceutics #243, Physics & Astronomy #451, Business, Management & Accounting #483. The portfolio leans on social sciences; Physical Sciences & Engineering, at world #1,023 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 #815 for connected research
32/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Duke University148
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins Universโ€ฆ111
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University94
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ท National and Kapodistโ€ฆ86
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Baylor College of Medโ€ฆ85
Life Sciences
World #936 for connected research
22/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Duke University32
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan32
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida32
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University30
King Saud University30
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #1023 for connected research
14/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ698
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ University of Britishโ€ฆ493
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ New Mexico State Univโ€ฆ478
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Michigan State Univerโ€ฆ353
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Caltech312
Social Sciences
World #790 for connected research
34/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Alabama45
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida36
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Mississippi State Uniโ€ฆ34
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Indiana University33
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Texas A&M University31
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 yieldMichigan State UniUniversity of CaliMississippi State
High yieldStandardLow yield

Michigan State University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 12.4): a consortium waiting to happen. Mississippi State University, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.0: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Michigan State University347 12.4High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, Riverside313 2.7Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ New Mexico State University300 3.2Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Duke University164 6.5High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University133 9.1High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins University124 4.6Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Mississippi State University111 2.0Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida107 4.1Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Indiana University106 2.8Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Pittsburgh96 4.7Standard
Source: institution-to-institution co-authorship ledger + field-weighted citation impact

Visualisation 4

Your global reach, and where it thins out

Top partner countries

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ United States 7,336
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 660
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 361
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 341
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 292
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 269
๐Ÿ‡ฏ๐Ÿ‡ต Japan 226
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡น Italy 209

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Michigan State University 347
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, Riverside 313
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ New Mexico State University 300
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Duke University 164
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University 133
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins University 124
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Mississippi State University 111
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida 107

The network spans 79 countries and 881 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.

๐Ÿ‡ญ๐Ÿ‡ฐ University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-1

University of Hong Kong is top-94 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‡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‡ญ๐Ÿ‡ฐ Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR · world top-3

Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-130 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 University of Oxford United Kingdom · world top-4

University of Oxford is top-11 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.

University of Mississippi Medical CenterMississippi Space Grant ConsortiumMississippi Alabama Sea Grant Consortium
Physics and AstronomyEarth and Planetary SciencesEngineering

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 Medical University of South CarolinaUnited States
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง City, University of LondonUnited Kingdom
University of JordanJO
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ท University of PatrasGreece
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Toronto Metropolitan UniversityCanada
Particle physics theoretical and experimental studiesHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchQuantum Chromodynamics and Particle InteractionsGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsAdvanced Antenna and Metasurface Technologies

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 Michigan State University tie into a consortium concept in Social Sciences.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the influence 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 Mississippi.

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.