Characterization, Description, and Considerations for the Use of Funding Acknowledgement Data in Web of Science
Open accessThe 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The coverage of funding information in both databases, especially Scopus, may not be comprehensive enough for accurate and reliable analyses of funding trends in SSH and research with strong national orientation.
“the majority of authors agree that, in the meantime, in both DBs (especially in Scopus) the coverage of FI may not be comprehensive enough for accurate and reliable analyses of funding trends in SSH and in research with strong national orientation.”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [76]
WoS only records acknowledgments if they contain funding information.
“Firstly, since WoS only records acknowledgments if they contain funding information [74,76], WoS FI may not be suitable for broader explorations of other kind acknowledgements.”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [76]
WoS funding information may not be suitable for broader explorations of acknowledgements other than funding.
“Firstly, since WoS only records acknowledgments if they contain funding information [74,76], WoS FI may not be suitable for broader explorations of other kind acknowledgements.”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [76]
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
Psychological relevance and information science
Harter, S. P. (1992) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199210)43:9 · Cited by 415 · see citing works
Costas, R., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2012) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.22692 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Self-citationWang, J., & Philip Shapira, A. (2011) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0362-5 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
The effect of funding on the outputs of biomedical research
Lewison, G., & Dawson, G. (1998) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02457963 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Shapira, P., & Wang, J. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/468627a · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Zhao, D. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0191-y · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Rigby, J. (2011) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.3152/095820211x13164389670392 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Rigby, J. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0779-5 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Díaz‐Faes, A. A., & Bordons, M. (2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23081 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Cronin, B., & Shaw, D. (1999) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/eum0000000007153 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
The evaluation of Russian cancer research
Lewison, G., & Markusova, V. A. (2010) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.3152/095820210x510098 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
The evaluation of Indian cancer research, 1990–2010
Lewison, G., & Roe, P. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0633-9 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Júlio, Isabel, palotes, P. L., & Jorge, J. (2014) · DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) · Cited by 28 · see citing works
MUSSURAKIS, S. (1994) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.163.4.8092046 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Conflicts of interest statements on biomedical papers
Lewison, G., & Sullivan, R. (2014) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1507-0 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Paper money: Trends of research sponsorship in American sociology journals
Crawpord, E. T., & Biderman, A. D. (1970) · Social Science Information · doi:10.1177/053901847000900103 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Association for Information Science and Technology
(2017) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1081/e-elis4-120051442 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
The Angle Sum Theory: Exploring the Literature on Acknowledgments in Scholarly Communication
Desrochers, N., Paul‐Hus, A., & Larivière, V. (2016) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783110308464-014 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Self-citationTheories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication
Sugimoto, C. R. (2016) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783110308464 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Impact of competitive funding on research output in Russia
Markusova, V. A., Либкинд, А. Н., & Aversa, E. S. (2012) · Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management · doi:10.1080/09737766.2012.10700924 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Linkage between research sponsorship and patented eye-care technology.
Ellwein, L. B., Kroll, P., & Narin, F. (1996) · PubMed · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Acknowledged: analysing the bibliometric presence of the Multiple Sclerosis Society
Rangnekar, D. (2005) · Aslib Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1108/00012530510599208 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Morillo, F., Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2015) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1564-z · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citationLinkage between research sponsorship and patented eye-care technology
Ellwein, L., Kroll, P., & Narin, F. (1997) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9394(14)70159-x · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Costas, R., & Yegros-Yegros, A. (2013). Possibilities of funding acknowledgement analysis for the bibliometric study of research funding organizations: case study of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF). In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (Vol. II, pp. 1401-1408). Vienna.
- Jeschin, D., Lewison, G., & Anderson, J. (1995). A bibliometric database for tracking acknowledgements of research funding. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 235-244).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World
Pranckutė, R. (2021) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications9010012 · Cited by 2,696 · see citing works
Kokol, P., & Blažun Vošner, H. (2018) · Journal of the Medical Library Association · doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.181 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Funding Information in Web of Science: An Updated Overview
Liu, W., Tang, L., & Hu, G. (2020) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03362-3 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Funding Acknowledgments in the Web of Science: Completeness and Accuracy of Collected Data
Álvarez-Bornstein, B., Morillo, F., & Bordons, M. (2017) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2453-4 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Accuracy of Funding Information in Scopus: A Comparative Case Study
Liu, W. (2020) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03458-w · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Research Misconduct Investigations in China’s Science Funding System
Tang, L., Wang, L., & Hu, G. (2023) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-023-00459-9 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Paul-Hus, A., Desrochers, N., & Costas, R.
- Affiliations
- Université de Montréal (CA)
- Leiden University (NL)
- ORCID
- Costas, Rodrigo
- Venue
- Scientometrics
- Published
- 2016-04-22
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 167-182
- ISSN
- 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
- 1588-2861
- OpenAlex
- W2340061204
- Cited by
- 121
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 9.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Scientometrics (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
- Papyrus : Institutional Repository (Université de Montréal) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
- Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
- DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and Science, Technology and Innovation Policy
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
- Keywords
- Web of Science, bibliographic metadata, research funding, data coverage, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Science Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, language bias, research impact
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
