Cited by 75scientometrics and bibliometrics researchOptics and Image AnalysisLibrary Science and Information

Funding Data from Publication Acknowledgments: Coverage, Uses, and Limitations

Open access
Grassano, Nicola, Rotolo, Daniele, Hutton, Joshua, Lang, Frédérique, Hopkins, Michael M.·2017·Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Abstract

This article contributes to the development of methods for analysing research funding systems by exploring the robustness and comparability of emerging approaches to generate funding landscapes useful for policy making. We use a novel data set of manually extracted and coded data on the funding acknowledgements of 7,510 publications representing UK cancer research in the year 2011 and compare these “reference data” with funding data provided by Web of Science (WoS) and MEDLINE/PubMed. Findings show high recall (around 93%) of WoS funding data. By contrast, MEDLINE/PubMed data retrieved less than half of the UK cancer publications acknowledging at least one funder. Conversely, both databases have high precision (+90%): That is, few cases of publications with no acknowledgment to funders are identified as having funding data. Nonetheless, funders acknowledged in UK cancer publications were not correctly listed by MEDLINE/PubMed and WoS in around 75% and 32% of the cases, respectively. Reference data on the UK cancer research funding system are used as a case study to demonstrate the utility of funding data for strategic intelligence applications (e.g., mapping of funding landscape and co‐funding activity, comparison of funders' research portfolios).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/asi.23737

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Harter, S. P. and Hooten, P. A. (1992). Information science and scientists: JASIS, 1972-1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9):583-593.
  2. Lewison, G., Dawson, G., and Anderson, J. (1995). The behaviour of scientific authors in acknowledging their funding sources. In Fifth biennial international conference of the Inter- national Society for Scientometrics and Infometrics, River Forest, IL.
  3. Leydesdorff, L., Rotolo, D., and Rafols, I. (2012). Bibliometric perspectives on medical inno- vation using the Medical Subject Headings of PubMed. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(11):2239-2253.
  4. Rotolo, D. and Leydesdorff, L. (2015). Matching MEDLINE/PubMed data with Web of Science (WoS): A routine in R-language. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 66(10):2155-2159.
  5. Rotolo, D., Rafols, I., Hopkins, M., and Leydesdorff, L. (2015). Strategic Intelligence on Emerg- ing Technologies: Scientometric Overlay Mapping. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, in press:1-38.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grassano, N., Rotolo, D., Hutton, J., Lang, F., & Hopkins, M. M.
Affiliations
University of Sussex (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Grassano, Nicola
  • Rotolo, Daniele
  • Hutton, Joshua
  • Lang, Frédérique
  • Hopkins, Michael M.
Venue
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-11-22
Volume
68
Issue
4
Pages
999-1017
ISSN
  • 2330-1635 (ISSN-L)
  • 2330-1643
OpenAlex
W2339577892
Cited by
75
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 8
FWCI
5.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK
  • Economic and Social Research Council (RES‐360‐25‐0076)
  • Higher Education Funding Council for England
  • University of Sussex
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Optics and Image Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
Keywords
research funding, funding acknowledgment, bibliographic metadata, Web of Science, cancer research funding, research funding system, strategic intelligence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review