Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Cambridge, United Kingdom · Member ID: 56 · 2,523,610 total works

Global Rank

#5,791

of 28,259

Percentile

Top 20%

of all publishers

To Reach Top 10%

+11

points needed

View Full Leaderboard

Nearby in Rankings:

#5789CenRaPS International Akademik Organizasyon Limited Şirketi(27 pts)#5790Iraqi Mushroom and Truffle Platform(27 pts)#5792Japanese Physical Therapy Association(26 pts)#5793Royal College of Psychiatrists(26 pts)

Nexus Score

26/ 100

+10 points vs historical

Score Breakdown by Era

Current

Last 2 years

#6,211

122,703 works

Backfile

Older than 2 years

#5,791

2,400,907 works

Ranked #6,211 for recent publications vs #5,791 overall — recent work trailing historical performance

Dimension Breakdown

Provenance

References, update policies, similarity check

10.9 / 25

People

ORCID coverage

4.2 / 20

Organizations

Affiliations and ROR IDs

0.9 / 15

Funding

Funder registry and award numbers

0.5 / 20

Access

Licenses, full-text links, abstracts

9.2 / 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
Posted ContentTOP	38	D	20%	74%	27%	4%	65%
Journal Articles	24	F	49%	7%	1%	1%	50%
Book Parts	15	F	33%	0%	0%	0%	34%
Monographs	14	F	9%	0%	0%	0%	57%
Book Chapters	14	F	30%	0%	0%	0%	32%
Edited Books	13	F	7%	0%	0%	0%	55%
Peer Reviews	11	F	0%	57%	0%	0%	0%
Other	11	F	17%	0%	0%	0%	34%
Books	11	F	0%	0%	0%	0%	55%
Reference Entry	10	F	27%	0%	0%	0%	16%
Journal Issues	8	F	1%	0%	0%	0%	41%
Journals	0	F	1%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Components	0	F	0%	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	43%	6.5 / 15	Needs Work
Update Policies provenance	27%	1.4 / 5	Needs Work
Similarity Check provenance	68%	3.4 / 5	Good
ORCID Coverage people	39%	7.7 / 20	Needs Work
Affiliations (Text) organizations	21%	1.1 / 5	Needs Work
ROR IDs organizations	7%	0.7 / 10	Poor
Funder Registry funding	5%	0.5 / 10	Poor
Award Numbers funding	4%	0.4 / 10	Poor
Licenses access	95%	6.7 / 7	Excellent
Full-text Links access	0%	0.0 / 7	Poor
Abstracts access	43%	2.6 / 6	Needs Work

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

+15 pts potential

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

Current: 3% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve People

+12 pts potential

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

Current: 21% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve Organizations

+11 pts potential

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

Current: 6% 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.

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

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

Deposit Complete References

Add Funder Information

Add Full-Text URLs

Add ROR IDs for Affiliations

Include Award/Grant Numbers

About This Score

Crossref Reports

Share Results