Global Research PartnershipsCreate free account
Research Collaboration Index
A worked example using real, public data for University of Wyoming (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
10,559
co-authored works, 5 years
895
partner universities
71
partner countries
498
sustained deep ties
2.88
collaboration impact (FWCI)
88%
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
  • Chemical Engineering is the standout field. Ranked #240 in the world for connected research, with Physics & Astronomy #304, Earth & Planetary Sciences #331 close behind: the anchors to build consortia around.
  • Strong on impact and international. University of Wyoming sits in the 69th percentile for impact and the 54th for international: genuine, defensible strengths.
  • A genuine bridge, not just a hub. 103 of 118 partners (88%) are non-redundant, so it connects communities that would not otherwise meet.
Challenges
  • Influence is the softest pillar. At the 33rd percentile it sits clearly below the others: the single clearest place to build.
  • Health & Medicine is the at-risk domain. World #1,087 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 74% of collaboration volume: depth, but a thin long tail.
Opportunities
  • Win HKU. World top-1. University of Hong Kong is top-127 globally in Physical 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-56 globally in Physical Sciences. Route: NSF / NIH international collaboration supplements, or a Human Frontier Science Program grant.
  • Convert your highest-yield tie. University of Maryland, College Park 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.

465
h-index of the joint research base
2.5M
citations to co-authored work
2.88
field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
10,559
co-authored works, 2021-2025
49
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.

Influence33rd pctReach43rd pctDiversity34th pctSustained41st pctImpact69th pctInternational54th pctBrokerage26th pct

University of Wyoming is strongest on impact (69th percentile), international (54th) and reach (43rd). Its brokerage diagnostic shows 103 of 118 partners (88%) are non-redundant, a genuine bridge between communities rather than a wide publisher.

The pillar to watch is Influence (33rd 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% weight33rd pct+7.3
Impact18% weight69th pct+12.4
Sustained18% weight41st pct+7.4
Reach16% weight43rd pct+6.9
Diversity16% weight34th pct+5.4
International10% weight54th pct+5.4

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#1000Chemical Engineering240Physics & Astronomy304Earth & Planetary Scieโ€ฆ331Environmental Sci.347Energy435Agricultural & Biologiโ€ฆ507
Standout (top 50)Solid (top 150)Ranked

University of Wyoming's strongest connected fields are Chemical Engineering #240, Physics & Astronomy #304, Earth & Planetary Sciences #331. The portfolio leans on physical sciences & engineering; Health & Medicine, at world #1,087 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 #1087 for connected research
9/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Washingโ€ฆ27
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Colorado State Univerโ€ฆ25
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of South Cโ€ฆ21
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Coloradโ€ฆ20
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Indiana University20
Life Sciences
World #964 for connected research
19/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida100
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ96
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Utah72
๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ‡ช UCLouvain62
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ George Washington Uniโ€ฆ61
Physical Sciences & Engineering
World #834 for connected research
30/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Marylanโ€ฆ354
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Utah256
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Coloradโ€ฆ220
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ220
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida218
Social Sciences
World #875 for connected research
27/100
Top collaboration partners
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Utah111
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida92
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Califorโ€ฆ91
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ George Washington Uniโ€ฆ88
๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ‡ช UCLouvain87
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 MaryColorado State UniVirginia TechUniversity of Cali
High yieldStandardLow yield

University of Maryland, College Park returns the highest impact of the set (FWCI 7.0): a consortium waiting to happen. Virginia Tech, by contrast, is a sizeable partner returning FWCI 2.4: worth asking what that volume is buying.

PartnerJoint worksFWCIYield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Maryland, College Park360 7.0High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Colorado State University246 3.5Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Arizona233 4.9Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The Ohio State University219 8.8High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Colorado Boulder191 4.4Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Texas A&M University151 3.2Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Pennsylvania State University146 5.6Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Utah141 9.8High yield
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Wisconsinโ€“Madison138 3.4Standard
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Florida131 3.6Standard
Source: institution-to-institution co-authorship ledger + field-weighted citation impact

Visualisation 4

Your global reach, and where it thins out

Top partner countries

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ United States 8,880
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China 1,002
๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ท France 797
๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง United Kingdom 790
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Canada 623
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia 603
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช Germany 487
๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡ธ Spain 232

Anchor partner institutions

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Maryland, College Park 360
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Colorado State University 246
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Arizona 233
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The Ohio State University 219
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Colorado Boulder 191
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Texas A&M University 151
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Pennsylvania State University 146
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ University of Utah 141

The network spans 71 countries and 895 universities, but the top two carry about 74% of the volume. That concentration is where the resilience question lives.

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-127 globally in Physical 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-56 globally in Physical 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-150 globally in Physical 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‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Monash University Australia · world top-7

Monash University is top-215 globally in Physical 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.

Wyoming Space Grant ConsortiumKonza Prairie Long Term Ecological ResearchRocky Mountain Advanced Computing Consortium
Environmental ScienceEarth 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.

University of the PunjabPK
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ Beijing University of TechnologyChina
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡น University of SassariItaly
University of IbadanNG
๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช TU Dortmund UniversityGermany
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesWildlife Ecology and ConservationRangeland and Wildlife ManagementSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis

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 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 Maryland, College Park tie into a consortium concept in Physical Sciences & Engineering.

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 Wyoming.

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.