Funding Acknowledgments in the Web of Science: Completeness and Accuracy of Collected Data
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?
Higher rates of omitted FI information in WoS were directly related to the length of the acknowledgement text.
“The higher rates of omitted information were directly related to the length of the acknowledgement text.”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [78]
Various other mistakes in WoS FI were determined, such as inconsistent registering of co-funded grants or multiple grants being assigned to the same funder.
“various other mistakes in WoS FI were determined, such as inconsistent registering of co-funded grants or multiple grants being assigned to the same funder”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [78]
In WoS, a given funder was almost always included in the FO subfield, while specific grant information appeared in only about half of the entries.
“a given funder was almost always included in the FO subfield, while specific grant information appeared in only about half of the entries”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [78]
In another study, the frequency of full or partial FI omission in WoS was approximately 12%.
“the frequency of full or partial FI omission in WoS was determined to be approximately 12%”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [78]
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
Who gets acknowledged: Measuring scientific contributions through automatic acknowledgment indexing
Giles, C. L. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0407743101 · Cited by 145 · 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
Wang, 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
Paul-Hus, A., Desrochers, N., & Costas, R. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1953-y · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Science funding and research output: a study on 10 countries
Wang, X., Liu, D., Ding, K., & Wang, X. (2011) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0576-6 · Cited by 115 · 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
Metrics associated with NIH funding: a high-level view
Boyack, K. W., & Jordan, P. (2011) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000213 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Funding Acknowledgment Analysis: Queries and Caveats
Tang, L., Hu, G., & Liu, W. (2017) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23713 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
The praxis of acknowledgement: from bibliometrics to influmetrics
Cronin, B., & Weaver, S. (1995) · Revista española de Documentación Científica · doi:10.3989/redc.1995.v18.i2.654 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Funding Data from Publication Acknowledgments: Coverage, Uses, and Limitations
Grassano, N., Rotolo, D., Hutton, J., Lang, F., & Hopkins, M. M. (2017) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23737 · Cited by 75 · 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
Self-citationCronin, B., & Shaw, D. (1999) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/eum0000000007153 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Salager‐Meyer, F., Alcaraz-Ariza, M. Á., Briceño, M. L., et al. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0329-y · Cited by 37 · see citing works
The Impact of National Institutes of Health Funding on U.S. Cardiovascular Disease Research
Lyubarova, R., Itagaki, B. K., & Itagaki, M. W. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006425 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
How accurately does output reflect the nature and design of transdisciplinary research programmes?
Koier, E., & Horlings, E. (2014) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvu027 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Júlio, Isabel, palotes, P. L., & Jorge, J. (2014) · DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Lewison, G. (1994) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02018556 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Freeman, M. (1998) · Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication · doi:10.1108/nlw.1998.99.2.90.3 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Public–private interactions reflected through the funding acknowledgements
Morillo, F. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2032-0 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Self-citationAcknowledgement of psychiatric research funding
Henderson, C., Howard, L. M., & Wilkinson, G. (2003) · The British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.183.4.273 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
La actividad científica del CSIC a través de indicadores bibliométricos (Web of Science, 2013-2017)
Bordons, M., Morillo, F., Moreno, L., et al. (2018) · DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) · doi:10.20350/digitalcsic/8605 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Self-citationManaging institutional archives: Foundational principles and practices
CONWAY, P. P. (1993) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199308)44:7 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Álvarez-Bornstein, B., Morillo, F., & Bordons, M. (2016). Accuracy and completeness of funding data in the Web of Science. In 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. Valencia, Spain: European Network of Indicator Designers (ENID) and INGENIO.
- 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 J.Gorraiz, E. Schiebel, C. Gumpenberger, M. Hörlesberger, & Moed, H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference (pp. 1401-1408). Vienna, Austria: Austrian Institute of Technology.
- Cronin, B., McKenzie, G., Rubio, L., & Weaver-Wozniak, S. (1993). Accounting for influence: Acknowledgments in contemporary sociology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 44(7), 406-412.
- Harter, S.P., & Hooten, P.A. (1992). Information science and scientists: JASIS, 1972-1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43, 9, 583-593.
- Sirtes, D. (2013). Funding acknowledgements for the German Research Foundation (DFG). The dirty data of the Web of Science database and how to clean it up. In J.Gorraiz, E. Schiebel, C. Gumpenberger, M. Hörlesberger, & Moed, H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference (pp. 784- 795). Vienna, Austria: Austrian Institute of Technology.
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
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
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
- Authors
- Álvarez-Bornstein, B., Morillo, F., & Bordons, M.
- Affiliations
- Universidad Complutense de Madrid (ES)
- Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Álvarez-Bornstein, Belén
- Venue
- Scientometrics
- Published
- 2017-07-01
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1793-1812
- ISSN
- 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
- 1588-2861
- OpenAlex
- W2733108025
- Cited by
- 73
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 6.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Scientometrics (publishedVersion)
- DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (CSO2014-57826-P, BES-2015-073537)
- 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 Systems
- Keywords
- research funding acknowledgment, Web of Science
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
