Wiley

Hoboken, NJ, United States · Member ID: 311 · 11,949,092 total works

Global Rank

#1,730

of 28,259

Percentile

Top 6%

of all publishers

View Full Leaderboard

Nearby in Rankings:

#1728Center for World Indigenous Studies(44 pts)#1729American Journal of Biological Defense(44 pts)#1731ASTM International(43 pts)#1732FapUNIFESP (SciELO)(43 pts)

Nexus Score

43/ 100

+12 points vs historical

Score Breakdown by Era

Current

Last 2 years

#1,594

934,900 works

Backfile

Older than 2 years

#1,730

11,014,192 works

Ranked #1,594 for recent publications vs #1,730 overall — improving with recent work

Dimension Breakdown

Provenance

References, update policies, similarity check

16.6 / 25

People

ORCID coverage

7.4 / 20

Organizations

Affiliations and ROR IDs

2.3 / 15

Funding

Funder registry and award numbers

3.7 / 20

Access

Licenses, full-text links, abstracts

13.0 / 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	42	D	70%	19%	11%	13%	84%
Posted Content	25	F	3%	82%	31%	5%	13%
Other	23	F	55%	0%	0%	0%	45%
Reference Entry	19	F	72%	0%	2%	0%	1%
Monographs	13	F	21%	0%	0%	0%	41%
Edited Books	13	F	20%	0%	0%	0%	39%
Book Chapters	11	F	40%	0%	1%	0%	5%
Reference Books	8	F	19%	0%	0%	0%	14%
Journal Issues	8	F	4%	0%	0%	0%	36%
Book Series	8	F	11%	0%	0%	0%	24%
Books	6	F	19%	0%	1%	0%	3%
Components	3	F	10%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Journals	2	F	7%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Datasets	2	F	0%	0%	13%	0%	0%
Reports	0	F	1%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Proceedings	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	66%	9.9 / 15	Good
Update Policies provenance	71%	3.6 / 5	Good
Similarity Check provenance	78%	3.9 / 5	Good
ORCID Coverage people	62%	12.3 / 20	Good
Affiliations (Text) organizations	67%	3.3 / 5	Good
ROR IDs organizations	0%	0.0 / 10	Poor
Funder Registry funding	30%	3.0 / 10	Needs Work
Award Numbers funding	25%	2.5 / 10	Needs Work
Licenses access	75%	5.2 / 7	Good
Full-text Links access	20%	1.4 / 7	Needs Work
Abstracts access	63%	3.8 / 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

+12 pts potential

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

Current: 18% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve Organizations

+10 pts potential

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

Current: 15% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve People

+9 pts potential

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

Current: 37% 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.

Wiley

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 ROR IDs for Affiliations

Add Full-Text URLs

Deposit Complete References

Add Funder Information

Include Award/Grant Numbers

About This Score

Crossref Reports

Share Results