Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for University of Notre Dame (United States), a Silver-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.

โ—‹ Silver standing · Research Collaboration Index
๐ŸŒ North America · 251 universities benchmarked
20,643
co-authored works, 5 years
1,043
partner universities
78
partner countries
732
sustained deep ties
2.81
collaboration impact (FWCI)
85%
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
  • Mathematics is the standout field. Ranked #165 in the world for connected research, with Physics & Astronomy #228, Business, Management & Accounting #245 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on diversity and reach. University of Notre Dame sits in the 71st percentile for diversity and the 70th for reach: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 134 of 158 partners (85%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Influence is the softest pillar. At the 58th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Health & Medicine is the at-risk domain. World #861 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 77% 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. Harvard University returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 7.0). 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.

746
h-index of the joint research base
8.3M
citations to co-authored work
2.81
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
20,643
co-authored works, 2021-2025
57
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.

Influence58th pctReach70th pctDiversity71st pctSustained69th pctImpact66th pctInternational60th pctBrokerage10th pct

University of Notre Dame is strongest on diversity (71st percentile), reach (70th) and sustained (69th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 134 of 158 partners (85%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Influence (58th 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 Silver band worldwide.
Influence22% weight58th pct+12.8
Impact18% weight66th pct+11.9
Sustained18% weight69th pct+12.4
Reach16% weight70th pct+11.2
Diversity16% weight71st pct+11.4
International10% weight60th pct+6.0

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#1000Mathematics165Physics & Astronomy228Business, Management &โ€ฆ245Computer Sci.246Decision Sciences269Social Sciences299
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

University of Notre Dame's strongest connected fields are Mathematics #165, Physics & Astronomy #228, Business, Management & Accounting #245. The portfolio leans on social sciences; Health & Medicine, at world #861 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 #861 for connected research
28/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Indiana University113
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ75
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University55
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Indiana University โ€“ โ€ฆ53
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Oxford48
Life Sciences
World #834 for connected research
30/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Indiana University103
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Chicago51
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Duke University47
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Stanford University43
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University39
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #540 for connected research
55/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Caltech561
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Purdue University Wesโ€ฆ526
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ MIT519
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida508
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Marylanโ€ฆ484
Social Sciences
World #407 for connected research
66/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Indiana University95
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of North Cโ€ฆ91
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University91
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan91
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The University of Texโ€ฆ81
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 yieldIndiana UniversityUniversity of ChicHarvard University
High yieldStandardLow yield

Harvard University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 7.0): a consortium waiting to happen. Indiana University, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.7: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Indiana University358 2.7Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Chicago309 4.7Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Purdue University West Lafayette274 4.2Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University270 7.0High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan244 4.6Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, Berkeley242 6.8High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Stanford University231 5.1Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Pennsylvania State University219 3.5Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign217 3.6Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins University210 5.3Standard
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 13,625
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 1,823
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 1,404
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 735
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 678
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 647
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 607
๐Ÿ‡ฏ๐Ÿ‡ต Japan 469

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Indiana University 358
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Chicago 309
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Purdue University West Lafayette 274
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University 270
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan 244
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, Berkeley 242
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Stanford University 231
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Pennsylvania State University 219

The network spans 78 countries and 1,043 universities, but the top two carry about 77% 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.

Mike and Josie Harper Cancer Research InstituteNSF CI Compass
Physics and AstronomySocial 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 Iowa State UniversityUnited States
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง London School of Economics and Political ScienceUnited Kingdom
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช RWTH Aachen UniversityGermany
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท Normandie UniversitรฉFrance
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Friedrich Schiller University JenaGermany
Particle physics theoretical and experimental studiesQuantum Chromodynamics and Particle InteractionsNuclear physics research studiesHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows

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 Harvard University tie into a consortium concept in Social Sciences.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the influence 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 Notre Dame.

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.