Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)

Belgrade, Serbia · Member ID: 3964 · 51,655 total works

Global Rank

#2,383

of 28,259

Percentile

Top 8%

of all publishers

View Full Leaderboard

Nearby in Rankings:

#2381Polish Botanical Society(39 pts)#2382The Korean Society for Clothing Industry(39 pts)#2384Physical Society of Japan(39 pts)#2385eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd(39 pts)

Nexus Score

38/ 100

+26 points vs historical

Score Breakdown by Era

Current

Last 2 years

#1,154

9,946 works

Backfile

Older than 2 years

#2,383

41,709 works

Ranked #1,154 for recent publications vs #2,383 overall — improving with recent work

Dimension Breakdown

Provenance

References, update policies, similarity check

15.1 / 25

People

ORCID coverage

9.6 / 20

Organizations

Affiliations and ROR IDs

3.2 / 15

Funding

Funder registry and award numbers

2.5 / 20

Access

Licenses, full-text links, abstracts

7.9 / 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
ProceedingsTOP	43	D	49%	80%	36%	0%	46%
Journal Articles	30	F	56%	29%	10%	14%	29%
Reports	23	F	0%	100%	0%	0%	15%
Book Chapters	20	F	0%	100%	0%	0%	0%
Edited Books	20	F	0%	100%	0%	0%	0%
Books	7	F	0%	33%	0%	0%	0%
Journal Issues	0	F	0%	0%	1%	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%	13.7 / 15	Excellent
Update Policies provenance	0%	0.0 / 5	Poor
Similarity Check provenance	72%	3.6 / 5	Good
ORCID Coverage people	75%	15.0 / 20	Good
Affiliations (Text) organizations	13%	0.6 / 5	Poor
ROR IDs organizations	49%	4.9 / 10	Needs Work
Funder Registry funding	13%	1.3 / 10	Poor
Award Numbers funding	12%	1.2 / 10	Poor
Licenses access	72%	5.0 / 7	Good
Full-text Links access	4%	0.3 / 7	Poor
Abstracts access	98%	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

+13 pts potential

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

Current: 13% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve Organizations

+9 pts potential

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

Current: 21% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve Access

+8 pts potential

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

Current: 40% 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.

Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)

Score Breakdown by Era

Dimension Breakdown

Score by Content Type

Detailed Metrics

Quick Wins to Improve Your Ranking

Improve Funding

Improve Organizations

Improve Access

Improvement Recommendations

Add Funder Information

Add Full-Text URLs

Include Author Affiliations

Enable Crossmark

Include Award/Grant Numbers

About This Score

Crossref Reports

Share Results