Frontiers Media SA

Lausanne, Switzerland · Member ID: 1965 · 769,335 total works

Global Rank

#2,976

of 28,259

Percentile

Top 11%

of all publishers

To Reach Top 10%

points needed

View Full Leaderboard

Nearby in Rankings:

#2974American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)(36 pts)#2975University of Veterinary Sciences Brno(36 pts)#2977The Korean Society for Microbiology and The Korean Society of Virology(36 pts)#2978Mongolian Journals Online(36 pts)

Nexus Score

36/ 100

+6 points vs historical

Score Breakdown by Era

Current

Last 2 years

#4,174

187,545 works

Backfile

Older than 2 years

#2,976

581,790 works

Ranked #4,174 for recent publications vs #2,976 overall — recent work trailing historical performance

Dimension Breakdown

Provenance

References, update policies, similarity check

21.9 / 25

People

ORCID coverage

0.1 / 20

Organizations

Affiliations and ROR IDs

0.3 / 15

Funding

Funder registry and award numbers

3.3 / 20

Access

Licenses, full-text links, abstracts

10.3 / 20

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	35	D	85%	0%	1%	20%	48%
Journal Issues	7	F	0%	0%	0%	0%	35%
Monographs	6	F	0%	0%	0%	0%	30%
Journals	1	F	2%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Books	0	F	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Proceedings	0	F	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Edited Books	0	F	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%

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

Why doesn't the leaderboard use per-type scores? Deciding which content types count as "primary research" is subjective and varies by discipline and publisher model. The leaderboard uses Crossref's aggregate coverage to ensure a consistent, comparable baseline across all 27,000+ publishers. This per-type breakdown lets you see the full picture for any individual publisher.

Detailed Metrics

Metric	Coverage	Points	Status
References provenance	94%	14.2 / 15	Excellent
Update Policies provenance	98%	4.9 / 5	Excellent
Similarity Check provenance	98%	4.9 / 5	Excellent
ORCID Coverage people	0%	0.0 / 20	Poor
Affiliations (Text) organizations	11%	0.6 / 5	Poor
ROR IDs organizations	0%	0.0 / 10	Poor
Funder Registry funding	14%	1.4 / 10	Poor
Award Numbers funding	7%	0.7 / 10	Poor
Licenses access	98%	6.9 / 7	Excellent
Full-text Links access	0%	0.0 / 7	Poor
Abstracts access	90%	5.4 / 6	Excellent

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

+16 pts potential

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

Current: 0% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve Funding

+13 pts potential

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

Current: 16% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve Organizations

+12 pts potential

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

Current: 2% 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.

Frontiers Media SA

Score Breakdown by Era

Dimension Breakdown

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 Full-Text URLs

Add Funder Information

Include Award/Grant Numbers

About This Score

Crossref Reports

Share Results