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

○ Silver standing · Research Collaboration Index
🌍 North America · 251 universities benchmarked
14,440
co-authored works, 5 years
939
partner universities
73
partner countries
601
sustained deep ties
2.88
collaboration impact (FWCI)
86%
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 #205 in the world for connected research, with Biochemistry, Genetics & Molecular Biology #280, Environmental Science #335 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on impact and influence. University of Vermont sits in the 69th percentile for impact and the 57th for influence: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 112 of 131 partners (86%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Diversity is the softest pillar. At the 42nd percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Physical Sciences & Engineering is the at-risk domain. World #1,025 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 80% 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 CUHK. World top-3. Chinese University of Hong Kong is top-132 globally in Health Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. Johns Hopkins University returns the highest impact of your partners (FWCI 6.5). 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.

663
h-index of the joint research base
5.2M
citations to co-authored work
2.88
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
14,440
co-authored works, 2021-2025
48
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.

Influence57th pctReach52nd pctDiversity42nd pctSustained56th pctImpact69th pctInternational51st pctBrokerage14th pct

University of Vermont is strongest on impact (69th percentile), influence (57th) and sustained (56th). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 112 of 131 partners (86%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Diversity (42nd 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 Silver band worldwide.
Influence22% weight57th pct+12.5
Impact18% weight69th pct+12.4
Sustained18% weight56th pct+10.1
Reach16% weight52nd pct+8.3
Diversity16% weight42nd pct+6.7
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#1000Neuroscience205Biochem. & Mol. Biology280Environmental Sci.335Agricultural & Biologi…338Decision Sciences378Medicine386
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

University of Vermont's strongest connected fields are Neuroscience #205, Biochemistry, Genetics & Molecular Biology #280, Environmental Science #335. The portfolio leans on health & medicine; Physical Sciences & Engineering, at world #1,025 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 #557 for connected research
53/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Harvard University414
🇺🇸 University of Washing…353
🇺🇸 Johns Hopkins Univers…340
🇺🇸 University of Alabama…251
🇺🇸 University of Califor…246
Life Sciences
World #699 for connected research
42/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Harvard University182
🇺🇸 University of Washing…157
🇺🇸 University of Michigan118
🇺🇸 University of North C…117
🇺🇸 University of Virginia114
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #1025 for connected research
14/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Michigan State Univer…76
🇺🇸 Purdue University Wes…72
🇺🇸 University of Michigan70
🇺🇸 University of Washing…62
🇺🇸 Pennsylvania State Un…56
Social Sciences
World #823 for connected research
31/100
Top collaboration partners
🇺🇸 Harvard University88
🇺🇸 Michigan State Univer…87
🇺🇸 University of Michigan72
🇺🇸 University of Wiscons…55
🇺🇸 Stanford University55
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 UniversityUniversity of WashJohns Hopkins UnivUniversidade Feder
High yieldStandardLow yield

Johns Hopkins University returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 6.5): a consortium waiting to happen. Utah State University, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 0.7: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
🇺🇸 Harvard University622 5.2Standard
🇺🇸 University of Washington524 3.8Standard
🇺🇸 Johns Hopkins University422 6.5Standard
🇺🇸 University of Michigan366 4.1Standard
🇺🇸 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill342 3.5Standard
🇺🇸 Utah State University336 0.7Low yield
🇺🇸 University of Alabama at Birmingham324 1.9Low yield
🇧🇷 Universidade Federal de Viçosa305 0.1Low yield
🇺🇸 University of California, San Francisco300 5.8Standard
🇺🇸 Stanford University300 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

🇺🇸 United States 17,018
🇬🇧 United Kingdom 1,251
🇩🇪 Germany 1,163
🇨🇦 Canada 1,082
🇫🇷 France 705
🇧🇷 Brazil 574
🇨🇳 China 530
🇦🇺 Australia 525

Anchor partner institutions

🇺🇸 Harvard University 622
🇺🇸 University of Washington 524
🇺🇸 Johns Hopkins University 422
🇺🇸 University of Michigan 366
🇺🇸 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 342
🇺🇸 Utah State University 336
🇺🇸 University of Alabama at Birmingham 324
🇧🇷 Universidade Federal de Viçosa 305

The network spans 73 countries and 939 universities, but the top two carry about 80% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives, and the Asia-Pacific white-space (3 of the region's 34 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 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-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

🇦🇺 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 your strongest field.

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

🇦🇺 The University of Queensland Australia · world top-12

The University of Queensland is top-69 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.

Danbury HospitalChamplain Valley Physicians HospitalUniversity of Vermont Medical CenterEastern Maine Medical CenterUniversity of Vermont Children’s HospitalWhite River Junction VA Medical CenterElizabethtown Community HospitalVermont Space Grant Consortium
PsychologyMedicineAgricultural and Biological Sciences

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 WarsawPoland
🇳🇱 Tilburg UniversityNetherlands
University of ZagrebHR
🇨🇦 Université du Québec à MontréalCanada
🇮🇪 Dublin City UniversityIreland
Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentSmoking Behavior and CessationBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsPlant and animal studiesNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchCardiomyopathy and Myosin 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 Asia-Pacific 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 Johns Hopkins University tie into a consortium concept in Health & Medicine.

60-90 days
Interrogate the soft spots

Address the diversity 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 Vermont.

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.