Source-linked AI summary
Characterization, description, and considerations for the use of funding acknowledgement data in Web of Science
Adele Paul-Hus, Nadine Desrochers, Rodrigo Costas
TL;DR
The characteristics and use implications of Web of Science funding-acknowledgement data remain insufficiently understood, hindering fuller development of research on the topic. This paper characterizes the data’s coverage, finding major differences across databases, years, and document types.
Problem
The characteristics and use implications of Web of Science funding-acknowledgement data remain insufficiently understood, hindering fuller development of research on the topic.
Source: p. 4Method
The paper characterizes the presence and distribution of Web of Science funding text, focusing on FT rather than the derived agency and grant-number fields.
Source: p. 5Results
Coverage is unreliable before 2009, concentrated in SCIE, begins for SSCI-only publications in 2015, absent in AHCI-only publications, and consistent mainly for articles and reviews.
Source: Methodological approach · pp. 7, 10, General recommendations for… · p. 13Takeaways & Limitations
Characterizing coverage boundaries supports future research by clarifying the data’s possibilities and limitations for use.
Source: pp. 4–5Web of Science indexes acknowledgements only when they mention funding, excluding other contributions and limiting broader studies of acknowledgements.
Source: Data collection issues · p. 13
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
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 (SCIE); more recently (2015), inclusion of funding texts for publications indexed in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) has been implemented. Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) 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.
Subject categories
Funding-text coverage is concentrated in SCIE-covered fields, while AHCI-only publications are not covered. WoS processes funding acknowledgements only when the text is in English, so low coverage in some publication languages does not establish that acknowledgements are absent.
Subject categories
- AHCI-only publications are not covered for funding text, explaining the absence of FT data in many humanities fields.SCIE-covered publications dominate FT processing across subject categories.Source: Subject categories · p. 12
- WoS processes funding acknowledgements only when the acknowledgement text is in English, regardless of the publication’s language.Low indexed FT shares in Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French publications do not show that those publications lack acknowledgements; Chinese-language publications include English-language FT in 35.9% of cases.Source: Languages · p. 12
- The bibliographic policy document describing FT processing was internal, and researchers were invited to contact Thomson Reuters for further information.Thomson Reuters indicated that it intended to add the guidelines to its website.Source: Languages · p. 12
Data collection issues
WoS indexes acknowledgements only when they mention funding, even though its Funding Text field includes the full acknowledgement text. This conditions broader acknowledgement analyses on the presence of funding content.
Data collection issues
- WoS processes and indexes funding acknowledgements only when they include a mention of funding.Acknowledgements without any mention of funding are not to be indexed under the bibliographic policy.Source: Data collection issues · p. 13
- The Funding Text field contains the full acknowledgement text, including contributions beyond funding.The indexed text is therefore not limited to funding-related information.Source: Data collection issues · p. 13
- Studies of non-funding contributions using WoS FT are biased toward acknowledgement texts that also mention funding.Examples of non-funding contributions include data collection, technical assistance, and critical reading.Source: Data collection issues · p. 13
General recommendations for researchers and practitioners
The recommendations emphasize that WoS funding-text coverage varies by year, database, language, and document type. Researchers should account for these boundaries, while further analyses could clarify coverage changes and distributions.
General recommendations for researchers and practitioners
- Pre-2009 SCIE article and review coverage is extremely low and unreliable; SSCI funding text begins in 2015, while AHCI-only publications are not covered.Researchers should be cautious when combining databases, which can give a misleading impression of SSCI coverage before 2015.Source: General recommendations for… · p. 13
- Because FT is indexed only when its text is in English, analyses of non-English-language publications should distinguish document language from FT language.The recommendation applies regardless of the language of the publication.Source: General recommendations for… · p. 13
- Broader acknowledgement studies using WoS FT are constrained because indexed acknowledgement texts must include funding-related content.This qualification applies to analyses beyond funding-related questions.Source: General recommendations for… · p. 14
- Further work could examine SCIE FT samples from 2009–2015, SSCI coverage by document type, and subject-category distributions.The paper presents its findings as a basis for understanding the data’s possibilities and limitations, and says more research is needed.Source: General recommendations for… · p. 14
Appendix 1. Breakdown of publications with FT by document type and across databases
The appendix breakdown identifies two measures: total publication counts and counts of publications containing Funding Text.
Appendix 1. Breakdown of publications with FT by document type and across databases
- One appendix measure is the total number of publications.Source: Appendix 1. Breakdown of publications… · p. 17
- A second appendix measure is the number of publications with FT.Source: Appendix 1. Breakdown of publications… · p. 17