Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

New York, NY, United States · Member ID: 276 · 2,919,274 total works

Global Rank

#5,797

of 28,259

Percentile

Top 21%

of all publishers

To Reach Top 10%

+11

points needed

View Full Leaderboard

Nearby in Rankings:

#5795Chem-Bio Informatics Society(26 pts)#5796Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)(26 pts)#5798Japanese Society of Animal Reproduction(26 pts)#5799EHU Press(26 pts)

Nexus Score

26/ 100

+18 points vs historical

Score Breakdown by Era

Current

Last 2 years

#5,241

242,919 works

Backfile

Older than 2 years

#5,797

2,676,355 works

Ranked #5,241 for recent publications vs #5,797 overall — improving with recent work

Dimension Breakdown

Provenance

References, update policies, similarity check

15.8 / 25

People

ORCID coverage

3.1 / 20

Organizations

Affiliations and ROR IDs

2.5 / 15

Funding

Funder registry and award numbers

0.4 / 20

Access

Licenses, full-text links, abstracts

4.2 / 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
Posted ContentTOP	25	F	0%	59%	0%	0%	65%
Journal Articles	19	F	52%	5%	10%	1%	14%
Journal Issues	9	F	6%	0%	0%	0%	37%
Database	3	F	10%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Journals	2	F	6%	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	64%	9.7 / 15	Good
Update Policies provenance	99%	5.0 / 5	Excellent
Similarity Check provenance	92%	4.6 / 5	Excellent
ORCID Coverage people	29%	5.7 / 20	Needs Work
Affiliations (Text) organizations	74%	3.7 / 5	Good
ROR IDs organizations	0%	0.0 / 10	Poor
Funder Registry funding	4%	0.4 / 10	Poor
Award Numbers funding	3%	0.3 / 10	Poor
Licenses access	33%	2.3 / 7	Needs Work
Full-text Links access	1%	0.1 / 7	Poor
Abstracts access	59%	3.6 / 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: 2% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve People

+13 pts potential

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

Current: 16% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve Access

+12 pts potential

Add abstracts, license URLs (using SPDX identifiers), and full-text links to your metadata.

Current: 21% 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.

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Score Breakdown by Era

Dimension Breakdown

Score by Content Type

Detailed Metrics

Quick Wins to Improve Your Ranking

Improve Funding

Improve People

Improve Access

Improvement Recommendations

Increase ORCID Coverage

Add ROR IDs for Affiliations

Add Funder Information

Add Full-Text URLs

Include Award/Grant Numbers

About This Score

Crossref Reports

Share Results