Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for University of Toledo (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
13,083
co-authored works, 5 years
872
partner universities
70
partner countries
467
sustained deep ties
2.18
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
  • Neuroscience is the standout field. Ranked #486 in the world for connected research, with Physics & Astronomy #544, Social Sciences #635 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on influence and reach. University of Toledo sits in the 49th percentile for influence and the 39th for reach: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 89 of 105 partners (85%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • International is the softest pillar. At the 10th percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Social Sciences is the at-risk domain. World #928 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 85% 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. University of California, Davis returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 5.9). 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.

462
h-index of the joint research base
2.3M
citations to co-authored work
2.18
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
13,083
co-authored works, 2021-2025
22
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.

Influence49th pctReach39th pctDiversity31st pctSustained36th pctImpact33rd pctInternational10th pctBrokerage12th pct

University of Toledo is strongest on influence (49th percentile), reach (39th) and sustained (36th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 89 of 105 partners (85%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is International (10th 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 pillarโ€™s weighted contribution; together they place the university in the global ranked cohort.
Influence22% weight49th pct+10.8
Impact18% weight33rd pct+5.9
Sustained18% weight36th pct+6.5
Reach16% weight39th pct+6.2
Diversity16% weight31st pct+5.0
International10% weight10th pct+1.0

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#1000Neuroscience486Physics & Astronomy544Social Sciences635Psychology652Engineering721Pharmacology, Toxicoloโ€ฆ748
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

University of Toledo's strongest connected fields are Neuroscience #486, Physics & Astronomy #544, Social Sciences #635. The portfolio leans on health & medicine; Social Sciences, at world #928 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 #555 for connected research
54/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan147
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Wayne State University124
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Iowa103
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Indiana University98
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Kentucky95
Life Sciences
World #878 for connected research
26/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Wayne State University106
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida101
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Minnesoโ€ฆ89
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Arkansaโ€ฆ85
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Aberdeen74
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #704 for connected research
41/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ3,558
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida159
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Wayne State University148
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Minnesoโ€ฆ136
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง University of Surrey131
Social Sciences
World #928 for connected research
22/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Universitรคt Ulm46
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Kentucky30
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan26
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ New Mexico State Univโ€ฆ23
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Duke University23
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 yieldUniversity of CaliUniversity of MichIndiana UniversityUniversity of Cali
High yieldStandardLow yield

University of California, Davis returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 5.9): a consortium waiting to happen. University of Michigan, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.3: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, Davis3,572 5.9High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan259 2.3Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University168 3.9Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Kentucky157 2.4Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Wayne State University155 2.2Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The Ohio State University149 3.6Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Indiana University130 1.8Low yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Case Western Reserve University119 2.6Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Johns Hopkins University119 4.2Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Iowa111 4.9Standard
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 11,000
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 502
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 428
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 396
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 344
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 331
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 314
EG 163

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of California, Davis 3,572
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Michigan 259
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Harvard University 168
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Kentucky 157
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Wayne State University 155
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The Ohio State University 149
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Indiana University 130
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Case Western Reserve University 119

The network spans 70 countries and 872 universities, but the top two carry about 85% 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.

๐Ÿ‡ญ๐Ÿ‡ฐ 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 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-85 globally in Health 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-132 globally in Health 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-29 globally in Health 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 Toledo Medical CenterMercy St. Vincent Medical Center
Earth and Planetary SciencesPhysics and Astronomy

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 New Jersey Institute of TechnologyUnited States
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of DenverUnited States
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ University of Shanghai for Science and TechnologyChina
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Chengdu University of TechnologyChina
Tanta UniversityEG
Earthquake Detection and AnalysisAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesStellar, planetary, and galactic studies

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 University of California, Davis tie into a consortium concept in Health & Medicine.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the international gap and the social sciences 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 Toledo.

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.