AOSIS

Durbanville, South Africa · Member ID: 2580 · 49,061 total works

Global Rank

#2,189

of 28,259

Percentile

Top 8%

of all publishers

View Full Leaderboard

Nearby in Rankings:

#2187International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP)(40 pts)#2188The Korean Institute of Metals and Materials(40 pts)#2190Canadian Mathematical Society(40 pts)#2191Forum XXI(40 pts)

Nexus Score

40/ 100

+29 points vs historical

Score Breakdown by Era

Current

Last 2 years

#1,034

6,317 works

Backfile

Older than 2 years

#2,189

42,744 works

Ranked #1,034 for recent publications vs #2,189 overall — improving with recent work

Dimension Breakdown

Provenance

References, update policies, similarity check

15.1 / 25

People

ORCID coverage

8.9 / 20

Organizations

Affiliations and ROR IDs

3.2 / 15

Funding

Funder registry and award numbers

0.0 / 20

Access

Licenses, full-text links, abstracts

12.8 / 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
MonographsTOP	34	F	56%	93%	0%	0%	6%
Journal Articles	29	F	48%	18%	7%	0%	64%
Edited Books	29	F	46%	85%	0%	0%	3%
Book Chapters	27	F	39%	86%	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	88%	13.2 / 15	Excellent
Update Policies provenance	48%	2.4 / 5	Needs Work
Similarity Check provenance	73%	3.7 / 5	Good
ORCID Coverage people	75%	15.1 / 20	Good
Affiliations (Text) organizations	44%	2.2 / 5	Needs Work
ROR IDs organizations	41%	4.1 / 10	Needs Work
Funder Registry funding	0%	0.0 / 10	Poor
Award Numbers funding	0%	0.0 / 10	Poor
Licenses access	82%	5.8 / 7	Excellent
Full-text Links access	56%	3.9 / 7	Good
Abstracts access	66%	3.9 / 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 Funding

+16 pts potential

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

Current: 0% 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: 22% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve People

+7 pts potential

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

Current: 45% 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.

AOSIS

Score Breakdown by Era

Dimension Breakdown

Score by Content Type

Detailed Metrics

Quick Wins to Improve Your Ranking

Improve Funding

Improve Organizations

Improve People

Improvement Recommendations

Add Funder Information

Include Award/Grant Numbers

Include Author Affiliations

Add ROR IDs for Affiliations

Add Full-Text URLs

About This Score

Crossref Reports

Share Results