Scientific Scholar

Pittsford, NY, United States · Member ID: 10894 · 50,623 total works

Global Rank

#3,274

of 28,501

Percentile

Top 11%

of all publishers

To Reach Top 10%

points needed

View Full Leaderboard

Nearby in Rankings:

#3272Centro Universitario Autonomo do Brasil(35 pts)#3273Codex - Revista de Estudos Classicos(35 pts)#3275Revista de Engenharia e Pesquisa Aplicada(35 pts)#3276Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland(35 pts)

Nexus Score

34/ 100

+13 points vs historical

Score Breakdown by Era

Current

Last 2 years

#3,760

11,305 works

Backfile

Older than 2 years

#3,274

39,318 works

Ranked #3,760 for recent publications vs #3,274 overall — recent work trailing historical performance

Dimension Breakdown

Provenance

References, update policies, similarity check

19.7 / 25

People

ORCID coverage

0.8 / 20

Organizations

Affiliations and ROR IDs

2.9 / 15

Funding

Funder registry and award numbers

1.1 / 20

Access

Licenses, full-text links, abstracts

9.7 / 20

Dimension Profile

Visual overview of metadata coverage across all five dimensions.

Score by Content Type

Scores calculated separately for each content type registered with Crossref. The aggregate score above includes all types.

Content Type	Score	Grade	Prov	People	Orgs	Fund	Access
Journal ArticlesTOP	31	F	72%	4%	15%	6%	44%
Proceedings	22	F	20%	0%	25%	0%	65%
Edited Books	6	F	0%	0%	0%	0%	30%
Journal Issues	5	F	19%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Journals	0	F	1%	0%	0%	0%	0%

Non-article content types (reviews, components, corrections) typically have lower metadata coverage, which can reduce the aggregate score above.

Want to compare by content type? The leaderboard supports filtering by content type — use it to see how publishers rank for journal articles, peer reviews, or other types individually.

Detailed Metrics

Metric	Coverage	Points	Status
References provenance	93%	14.0 / 15	Excellent
Update Policies provenance	97%	4.9 / 5	Excellent
Similarity Check provenance	88%	4.4 / 5	Excellent
ORCID Coverage people	4%	0.9 / 20	Poor
Affiliations (Text) organizations	82%	4.1 / 5	Excellent
ROR IDs organizations	0%	0.0 / 10	Poor
Funder Registry funding	6%	0.6 / 10	Poor
Award Numbers funding	3%	0.3 / 10	Poor
Licenses access	13%	0.9 / 7	Poor
Full-text Links access	95%	6.7 / 7	Excellent
Abstracts access	68%	4.1 / 6	Good

Quick Wins to Improve Your Ranking

Small metadata improvements can significantly boost your score. Here are the highest-impact changes you can make:

Improve People

+15 pts potential

Include ORCID iDs for authors. Encourage authors to authenticate their ORCID during submission.

Current: 4% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve Funding

+15 pts potential

Include funder information using Open Funder Registry IDs and grant/award numbers.

Current: 6% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve Organizations

+9 pts potential

Add author affiliations with ROR IDs. The ROR API can help match institution names to IDs.

Current: 19% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Pro Tip: Focus on your current (recent) publications first. Improving metadata on new deposits is easier than updating backfiles, and it will immediately improve your "current" coverage scores.

Scientific Scholar

Score Breakdown by Era

Dimension Breakdown

Dimension Profile

Score by Content Type

Detailed Metrics

Quick Wins to Improve Your Ranking

Improve People

Improve Funding

Improve Organizations

Improvement Recommendations

Increase ORCID Coverage

Add ROR IDs for Affiliations

Add Funder Information

Include Award/Grant Numbers

Add License Information

About This Score

Crossref Reports

Share Results