Elsevier BV

Amsterdam, NX, Netherlands · Member ID: 78 · 24,647,998 total works

Global Rank

#2,972

of 28,259

Percentile

Top 11%

of all publishers

To Reach Top 10%

points needed

View Full Leaderboard

Nearby in Rankings:

#2970Fakultet društvenih nauka(37 pts)#2971CSIRO Publishing(36 pts)#2973National Library of Serbia(36 pts)#2974American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)(36 pts)

Nexus Score

36/ 100

+12 points vs historical

Score Breakdown by Era

Current

Last 2 years

#3,476

3,085,927 works

Backfile

Older than 2 years

#2,972

21,562,071 works

Ranked #3,476 for recent publications vs #2,972 overall — recent work trailing historical performance

Dimension Breakdown

Provenance

References, update policies, similarity check

14.0 / 25

People

ORCID coverage

4.7 / 20

Organizations

Affiliations and ROR IDs

0.0 / 15

Funding

Funder registry and award numbers

4.7 / 20

Access

Licenses, full-text links, abstracts

12.3 / 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
Journal ArticlesTOP	33	F	54%	13%	0%	17%	67%
Book Chapters	18	F	36%	0%	0%	1%	42%
Proceedings	13	F	37%	0%	24%	0%	0%
Posted Content	8	F	26%	5%	0%	0%	2%
Reference Books	7	F	0%	0%	0%	0%	35%
Edited Books	7	F	0%	0%	0%	0%	34%
Books	6	F	0%	0%	0%	0%	31%
Components	5	F	19%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Journal Issues	3	F	0%	0%	0%	0%	16%
Journals	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	75%	11.2 / 15	Good
Update Policies provenance	79%	3.9 / 5	Good
Similarity Check provenance	0%	0.0 / 5	Poor
ORCID Coverage people	39%	7.8 / 20	Needs Work
Affiliations (Text) organizations	0%	0.0 / 5	Poor
ROR IDs organizations	0%	0.0 / 10	Poor
Funder Registry funding	40%	4.0 / 10	Needs Work
Award Numbers funding	29%	2.9 / 10	Needs Work
Licenses access	82%	5.8 / 7	Excellent
Full-text Links access	83%	5.8 / 7	Excellent
Abstracts access	1%	0.1 / 6	Poor

Quick Wins to Improve Your Ranking

Small metadata improvements can significantly boost your score. Here are the highest-impact changes you can make:

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 →

Improve People

+11 pts potential

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

Current: 24% coverageView Crossref Documentation →

Improve Funding

+11 pts potential

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

Current: 24% 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.

Elsevier BV

Score Breakdown by Era

Dimension Breakdown

Score by Content Type

Detailed Metrics

Quick Wins to Improve Your Ranking

Improve Organizations

Improve People

Improve Funding

Improvement Recommendations

Add ROR IDs for Affiliations

Include Abstracts

Include Author Affiliations

Enable Similarity Check

Increase ORCID Coverage

About This Score

Crossref Reports

Share Results