Open Book Publishers

Cambridge, United Kingdom · Member ID: 4923 · 8,796 total works

Global Rank

#548

of 28,259

Percentile

Top 2%

of all publishers

View Full Leaderboard

Nearby in Rankings:

#546The Microbiological Society of Korea(50 pts)#547American Association of Psychiatric Pharmacists (AAPP)(50 pts)#549Enviro Research Publishers(50 pts)#550Korean Society for the History of Medicine(50 pts)

Nexus Score

49/ 100

+26 points vs historical

Score Breakdown by Era

Current

Last 2 years

#315

2,186 works

Backfile

Older than 2 years

#548

6,610 works

Ranked #315 for recent publications vs #548 overall — improving with recent work

Dimension Breakdown

Provenance

References, update policies, similarity check

16.4 / 25

People

ORCID coverage

8.3 / 20

Organizations

Affiliations and ROR IDs

7.4 / 15

Funding

Funder registry and award numbers

1.9 / 20

Access

Licenses, full-text links, abstracts

15.3 / 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
Edited BooksTOP	65	B	60%	69%	87%	18%	97%
Reference Books	60	C	54%	53%	93%	11%	100%
Monographs	59	C	68%	48%	73%	11%	97%
Book Chapters	50	C	68%	45%	42%	11%	75%
Books	45	D	40%	0%	100%	0%	100%
Book Track	30	F	34%	59%	19%	0%	35%
Journal Articles	23	F	51%	0%	2%	0%	49%
Book Sets	19	F	20%	0%	0%	0%	70%
Other	7	F	0%	0%	0%	0%	35%
Posted Content	3	F	0%	14%	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	60%	9.0 / 15	Good
Update Policies provenance	95%	4.8 / 5	Excellent
Similarity Check provenance	98%	4.9 / 5	Excellent
ORCID Coverage people	54%	10.7 / 20	Good
Affiliations (Text) organizations	81%	4.1 / 5	Excellent
ROR IDs organizations	78%	7.8 / 10	Good
Funder Registry funding	17%	1.7 / 10	Poor
Award Numbers funding	6%	0.6 / 10	Poor
Licenses access	98%	6.9 / 7	Excellent
Full-text Links access	95%	6.7 / 7	Excellent
Abstracts access	89%	5.3 / 6	Excellent

Your edited books score 65 (Grade B) — strong work on your primary research outputs! The tips below reflect your aggregate coverage across all content types, where there's still room to grow.

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

+14 pts potential

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

Current: 10% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve People

+8 pts potential

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

Current: 42% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve Organizations

+5 pts potential

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

Current: 49% 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.

Open Book Publishers

Score Breakdown by Era

Dimension Breakdown

Score by Content Type

Detailed Metrics

Quick Wins to Improve Your Ranking

Improve Funding

Improve People

Improve Organizations

Improvement Recommendations

Add Funder Information

Include Award/Grant Numbers

Increase ORCID Coverage

Deposit Complete References

Include Abstracts

About This Score

Crossref Reports

Share Results