Oxford University Press (OUP)

Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom · Member ID: 286 · 7,489,701 total works

Global Rank

#10,079

of 28,259

Percentile

Top 36%

of all publishers

To Reach Top 10%

+17

points needed

View Full Leaderboard

Nearby in Rankings:

#10077Jagua Publication(21 pts)#10078The Virginia Association of Colleges and Teacher Educators(21 pts)#10080International Heart Journal (Japanese Heart Journal)(20 pts)#10081Johnson Matthey Plc(20 pts)

Nexus Score

20/ 100

+18 points vs historical

Score Breakdown by Era

Current

Last 2 years

#6,883

463,018 works

Backfile

Older than 2 years

#10,079

7,026,683 works

Ranked #6,883 for recent publications vs #10,079 overall — improving with recent work

Dimension Breakdown

Provenance

References, update policies, similarity check

7.7 / 25

People

ORCID coverage

3.0 / 20

Organizations

Affiliations and ROR IDs

1.9 / 15

Funding

Funder registry and award numbers

1.9 / 20

Access

Licenses, full-text links, abstracts

5.2 / 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
Journal ArticlesTOP	20	F	41%	9%	12%	7%	25%
Book Sections	12	F	43%	1%	2%	0%	2%
Edited Books	10	F	11%	0%	14%	0%	24%
Other	9	F	33%	1%	3%	0%	1%
Journal Issues	7	F	3%	0%	0%	0%	33%
Books	6	F	2%	1%	3%	0%	24%
Book Chapters	6	F	13%	0%	1%	0%	11%
Proceedings	3	F	0%	0%	20%	0%	0%
Journals	1	F	2%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Monographs	0	F	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Reference Entry	0	F	0%	0%	0%	0%	2%
Components	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	39%	5.8 / 15	Needs Work
Update Policies provenance	3%	0.2 / 5	Poor
Similarity Check provenance	69%	3.5 / 5	Good
ORCID Coverage people	27%	5.4 / 20	Needs Work
Affiliations (Text) organizations	57%	2.8 / 5	Good
ROR IDs organizations	0%	0.0 / 10	Poor
Funder Registry funding	18%	1.8 / 10	Poor
Award Numbers funding	14%	1.4 / 10	Poor
Licenses access	55%	3.9 / 7	Good
Full-text Links access	0%	0.0 / 7	Poor
Abstracts access	60%	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

+14 pts potential

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

Current: 10% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve People

+13 pts potential

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

Current: 15% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve Provenance

+12 pts potential

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

Current: 31% 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.

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Score Breakdown by Era

Dimension Breakdown

Score by Content Type

Detailed Metrics

Quick Wins to Improve Your Ranking

Improve Funding

Improve People

Improve Provenance

Improvement Recommendations

Increase ORCID Coverage

Deposit Complete References

Add ROR IDs for Affiliations

Add Full-Text URLs

Add Funder Information

About This Score

Crossref Reports

Share Results