Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)

New York, NY, United States · Member ID: 320 · 743,339 total works

Global Rank

#302

of 28,259

Percentile

Top 1%

of all publishers

View Full Leaderboard

Nearby in Rankings:

#300Biteca (Publications)(55 pts)#301University of Nis Faculty of Medicine(55 pts)#303Korean Pediatric Society(54 pts)#304Korean Institute of Electromagnetic Engineering and Science(54 pts)

Nexus Score

54/ 100

+21 points vs historical

Score Breakdown by Era

Current

Last 2 years

#248

94,922 works

Backfile

Older than 2 years

#302

648,417 works

Ranked #248 for recent publications vs #302 overall — improving with recent work

Dimension Breakdown

Provenance

References, update policies, similarity check

21.9 / 25

People

ORCID coverage

10.1 / 20

Organizations

Affiliations and ROR IDs

4.5 / 15

Funding

Funder registry and award numbers

5.8 / 20

Access

Licenses, full-text links, abstracts

11.5 / 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	49	D	84%	16%	29%	19%	85%
Proceedings	47	D	84%	20%	29%	23%	63%
Book Chapters	32	F	73%	0%	5%	0%	64%
Books	31	F	65%	52%	30%	0%	0%
Monographs	22	F	73%	0%	26%	0%	0%
Other	17	F	18%	0%	5%	0%	58%
Edited Books	6	F	23%	0%	2%	0%	0%
Reference Books	5	F	20%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Reports	3	F	10%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Proceedings	1	F	3%	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	95%	14.3 / 15	Excellent
Update Policies provenance	97%	4.9 / 5	Excellent
Similarity Check provenance	94%	4.7 / 5	Excellent
ORCID Coverage people	94%	18.8 / 20	Excellent
Affiliations (Text) organizations	97%	4.9 / 5	Excellent
ROR IDs organizations	0%	0.0 / 10	Poor
Funder Registry funding	40%	4.0 / 10	Needs Work
Award Numbers funding	38%	3.8 / 10	Needs Work
Licenses access	58%	4.1 / 7	Good
Full-text Links access	56%	3.9 / 7	Good
Abstracts access	18%	1.1 / 6	Poor

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

+10 pts potential

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

Current: 29% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve Organizations

+8 pts potential

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

Current: 30% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve People

+6 pts potential

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

Current: 51% 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.

Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)

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

Include Abstracts

Add License Information

Add Funder Information

Add Full-Text URLs

About This Score

Crossref Reports

Share Results