Pro-Metrics

Tallinn, Estonia · Member ID: 27835 · 360 total works

Global Rank

#1,833

of 28,364

Percentile

Top 6%

of all publishers

View Full Leaderboard

Nearby in Rankings:

#1831The Venezuelan Civil Association for Social Research for Humanity (ACVENISPROH)(43 pts)#1832Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Cankaya University(43 pts)#1834Institute of Sensory Organs(43 pts)#1835Conselho Regional de Contabilidade de Minas Gerais(43 pts)

Nexus Score

43/ 100

+10 points vs historical

Score Breakdown by Era

Current

Last 2 years

#1,874

169 works

Backfile

Older than 2 years

#1,833

191 works

Ranked #1,874 for recent publications vs #1,833 overall — recent work trailing historical performance

Dimension Breakdown

Provenance

References, update policies, similarity check

10.6 / 25

People

ORCID coverage

15.6 / 20

Organizations

Affiliations and ROR IDs

0.1 / 15

Funding

Funder registry and award numbers

1.6 / 20

Access

Licenses, full-text links, abstracts

14.9 / 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	53	C	59%	83%	0%	11%	99%
Edited Books	21	F	5%	88%	0%	0%	11%
Monographs	16	F	0%	40%	20%	0%	24%
Book Chapters	16	F	1%	64%	0%	0%	16%

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	58%	8.7 / 15	Good
Update Policies provenance	0%	0.0 / 5	Poor
Similarity Check provenance	76%	3.8 / 5	Good
ORCID Coverage people	85%	17.0 / 20	Excellent
Affiliations (Text) organizations	1%	0.0 / 5	Poor
ROR IDs organizations	1%	0.1 / 10	Poor
Funder Registry funding	12%	1.2 / 10	Poor
Award Numbers funding	12%	1.2 / 10	Poor
Licenses access	76%	5.3 / 7	Good
Full-text Links access	76%	5.3 / 7	Good
Abstracts access	84%	5.0 / 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 Funding

+14 pts potential

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

Current: 8% 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: 0% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve Provenance

+10 pts potential

Add reference lists to your DOI deposits. Even partial references help establish citation links.

Current: 42% 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.

Pro-Metrics

Score Breakdown by Era

Dimension Breakdown

Score by Content Type

Detailed Metrics

Quick Wins to Improve Your Ranking

Improve Funding

Improve Organizations

Improve Provenance

Improvement Recommendations

Add ROR IDs for Affiliations

Add Funder Information

Include Author Affiliations

Enable Crossmark

Deposit Complete References

About This Score

Crossref Reports

Share Results