ASTM International

W. Conshohoken, PA, United States · Member ID: 381 · 56,130 total works

Global Rank

#1,731

of 28,259

Percentile

Top 6%

of all publishers

View Full Leaderboard

Nearby in Rankings:

#1729American Journal of Biological Defense(44 pts)#1730Wiley(43 pts)#1732FapUNIFESP (SciELO)(43 pts)#1733The Korean Powder Metallurgy & Materials Institute(43 pts)

Nexus Score

43/ 100

+30 points vs historical

Score Breakdown by Era

Current

Last 2 years

#626

594 works

Backfile

Older than 2 years

#1,731

55,536 works

Ranked #626 for recent publications vs #1,731 overall — improving with recent work

Dimension Breakdown

Provenance

References, update policies, similarity check

19.5 / 25

People

ORCID coverage

9.2 / 20

Organizations

Affiliations and ROR IDs

4.4 / 15

Funding

Funder registry and award numbers

4.3 / 20

Access

Licenses, full-text links, abstracts

5.4 / 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	37	D	92%	17%	30%	4%	27%
Book Chapters	23	F	58%	0%	26%	0%	24%
Other	15	F	50%	0%	17%	0%	0%
Reference Entry	15	F	60%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Monographs	8	F	0%	0%	21%	0%	25%
Books	8	F	0%	0%	24%	0%	21%
Journal Issues	0	F	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Edited Books	0	F	0%	0%	3%	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	92%	13.8 / 15	Excellent
Update Policies provenance	57%	2.9 / 5	Good
Similarity Check provenance	96%	4.8 / 5	Excellent
ORCID Coverage people	87%	17.3 / 20	Excellent
Affiliations (Text) organizations	94%	4.7 / 5	Excellent
ROR IDs organizations	0%	0.0 / 10	Poor
Funder Registry funding	44%	4.4 / 10	Needs Work
Award Numbers funding	40%	4.0 / 10	Needs Work
Licenses access	0%	0.0 / 7	Poor
Full-text Links access	0%	0.0 / 7	Poor
Abstracts access	97%	5.8 / 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

+12 pts potential

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

Current: 22% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve Access

+11 pts potential

Add abstracts, license URLs (using SPDX identifiers), and full-text links to your metadata.

Current: 27% 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 →

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.

ASTM International

Score Breakdown by Era

Dimension Breakdown

Score by Content Type

Detailed Metrics

Quick Wins to Improve Your Ranking

Improve Funding

Improve Access

Improve Organizations

Improvement Recommendations

Add ROR IDs for Affiliations

Add License Information

Add Full-Text URLs

Add Funder Information

Include Award/Grant Numbers

About This Score

Crossref Reports

Share Results