Queensland University of Technology

Kelvin Grove, Australia · Member ID: 3230 · 4,032 total works

Global Rank

#10,107

of 28,259

Percentile

Top 36%

of all publishers

To Reach Top 10%

+17

points needed

View Full Leaderboard

Nearby in Rankings:

#10105Japan Society of Kansei Engineering(20 pts)#10106Public Health Research Foundation(20 pts)#10108Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management(20 pts)#10109Korean Bone and Joint Tumor Society (KAMJE)(20 pts)

Nexus Score

20/ 100

+14 points vs historical

Score Breakdown by Era

Current

Last 2 years

#7,568

533 works

Backfile

Older than 2 years

#10,107

3,499 works

Ranked #7,568 for recent publications vs #10,107 overall — improving with recent work

Dimension Breakdown

Provenance

References, update policies, similarity check

2.1 / 25

People

ORCID coverage

7.9 / 20

Organizations

Affiliations and ROR IDs

0.0 / 15

Funding

Funder registry and award numbers

0.0 / 20

Access

Licenses, full-text links, abstracts

9.6 / 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
ReportsTOP	23	F	0%	92%	1%	1%	23%
Books	21	F	0%	80%	0%	0%	25%
Edited Books	20	F	1%	70%	0%	0%	31%
Journal Articles	15	F	6%	21%	0%	0%	44%
Dissertations	9	F	0%	5%	2%	0%	38%
Monographs	7	F	0%	30%	0%	0%	6%
Book Chapters	6	F	23%	2%	0%	0%	0%
Reference Books	6	F	0%	0%	0%	0%	30%

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	8%	1.1 / 15	Poor
Update Policies provenance	0%	0.0 / 5	Poor
Similarity Check provenance	35%	1.8 / 5	Needs Work
ORCID Coverage people	61%	12.2 / 20	Good
Affiliations (Text) organizations	0%	0.0 / 5	Poor
ROR IDs organizations	0%	0.0 / 10	Poor
Funder Registry funding	0%	0.0 / 10	Poor
Award Numbers funding	0%	0.0 / 10	Poor
Licenses access	60%	4.2 / 7	Good
Full-text Links access	35%	2.5 / 7	Needs Work
Abstracts access	79%	4.8 / 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 Provenance

+18 pts potential

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

Current: 8% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve Funding

+16 pts potential

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

Current: 0% 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 →

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.

Queensland University of Technology

Score Breakdown by Era

Dimension Breakdown

Score by Content Type

Detailed Metrics

Quick Wins to Improve Your Ranking

Improve Provenance

Improve Funding

Improve Organizations

Improvement Recommendations

Deposit Complete References

Add ROR IDs for Affiliations

Add Funder Information

Include Award/Grant Numbers

Include Author Affiliations

About This Score

Crossref Reports

Share Results