Scientometrics

, Volume 108, Issue 1, pp 167–182 | Cite as

Characterization, description, and considerations for the use of funding acknowledgement data in Web of Science

  • Adèle Paul-Hus
  • Nadine Desrochers
  • Rodrigo Costas
Article

Abstract

Funding acknowledgements found in scientific publications have been used to study the impact of funding on research since the 1970s. However, no broad scale indexation of that paratextual element was done until 2008, when Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science started to add funding acknowledgement information to its bibliographic records. As this new information provides a new dimension to bibliometric data that can be systematically exploited, it is important to understand the characteristics of these data and the underlying implications for their use. This paper analyses the presence and distribution of funding acknowledgement data covered in Web of Science. Our results show that prior to 2009 funding acknowledgements coverage is extremely low and therefore not reliable. Since 2008, funding information has been collected mainly for publications indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded; more recently (2015), inclusion of funding texts for publications indexed in the Social Science Citation Index has been implemented. Arts & Humanities Citation Index content is not indexed for funding acknowledgement data. Moreover, English-language publications are the most reliably covered. Finally, not all types of documents are equally covered for funding information indexation and only articles and reviews show consistent coverage. The characterization of the funding acknowledgement information collected by Thomson Reuters can therefore help understand the possibilities offered by the data but also their limitations.

Keywords

Funding acknowledgements Web of Science Bibliometrics 

References

  1. Costas, R., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2012). Approaching the “reward triangle”: General analysis of the presence of funding acknowledgments and “peer interactive communication” in scientific publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1647–1661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  3. Crawford, E. T., & Biderman, A. D. (1970). Paper money: Trends of research sponsorship in American sociology journals. Social Science Information, 9(1), 50–77. doi:10.1177/053901847000900103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cronin, B., & Shaw, D. (1999). Citation, funding acknowledgement and author nationality relationships in four information science journals. Journal of Documentation, 55(4), 402–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Desrochers, N., Paul-Hus, A., & Larivière, V. (2016). The angle sum theory: Exploring the literature on acknowledgments in scholarly communication. In C. R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication. Berlin, De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  6. Díaz-Faes, A. A., & Bordons, M. (2014). Acknowledgments in scientific publications: Presence in Spanish science and text patterns across disciplines. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,. doi:10.1002/asi.23081.Google Scholar
  7. Ellwein, L. B., Kroll, P., & Narin, F. (1996). Linkage between research sponsorship and patented eye-care technology. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 37(12), 2495–2503.Google Scholar
  8. 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. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199210)43:9<583:AID-ASI1>3.0.CO;2-O.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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).Google Scholar
  10. Lewison, G., & Dawson, G. (1998). The effect of funding on the outputs of biomedical research. Scientometrics, 41(1–2), 17–27. doi:10.1007/BF02457963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lewison, G., & Markusova, V. (2010). The evaluation of Russian cancer research. Research Evaluation, 19(2), 129–144. doi:10.3152/095820210X510098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewison, G., & Roe, P. (2012). The evaluation of Indian cancer research, 1990–2010. Scientometrics, 93(1), 167–181. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0633-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lewison, G., & Sullivan, R. (2015). Conflicts of interest statements on biomedical papers. Scientometrics, 102(3), 2151–2159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Markusova, V. A., Libkind, A., & Aversa, E. (2012). Impact of competitive funding on research output in Russia. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 6(1), 61–69. doi:10.1080/09737766.2012.10700924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morillo, F., Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2015). How is credit given to networking centres in their publications? A case study of the Spanish CIBER research structures. Scientometrics, 103(3), 923–938. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1564-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mussurakis, S. (1994). Financial support for research in radiology: a survey of original investigations published in the AJR and Radiology. American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR), 163(4), 973–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rangnekar, D. (2005). Acknowledged: Analysing the bibliometric presence of the Multiple Sclerosis Society. Aslib Proceedings, 57(3), 247–260. doi:10.1108/00012530510599208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reuters, T. (2015). Thomson Reuters Bibliographic Policy Funding Acknowledgements. Internal document.Google Scholar
  19. Rigby, J. (2011). Systematic grant and funding body acknowledgement data for publications: New dimensions and new controversies for research policy and evaluation. Research Evaluation, 20(5), 365–375. doi:10.3152/095820211X13164389670392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rigby, J. (2013). Looking for the impact of peer review: Does count of funding acknowledgements really predict research impact? Scientometrics, 94(1), 57–73. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0779-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shapira, P., & Wang, J. (2010). Follow the money. Nature, 468(7324), 627–628. doi:10.1038/468627a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tang, L., Hu, G., & Liu, W. (2016). Funding acknowledment analysis: Queries and caveats. http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00245 (accepted for publication by the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology).
  23. Wang, J., & Shapira, P. (2011). Funding acknowledgement analysis: An enhanced tool to investigate research sponsorship impacts: The case of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 87(3), 563–586. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0362-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zhao, D. (2010). Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: A case study of the library and information science field. Scientometrics, 84(2), 293–306. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0191-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adèle Paul-Hus
    • 1
  • Nadine Desrochers
    • 1
  • Rodrigo Costas
    • 2
  1. 1.École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l’informationUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)Leiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations