The availability and completeness of open funder metadata
Case study for publications funded by the Dutch Research Council
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21255879 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Bianca Kramer (0000-0002-5965-6560, Utrecht University), Huub De Jonge (0000-0002-1189-9133, Dutch Research Council) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 583-599 |
| Publication date | 2022-11-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Quantitative Science Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2641-3337 • E-ISSN: 2641-3337 |
| Publisher | MIT Press (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1162/qss_a_00210 |
| OpenAlex | W4295877960 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 9 |
| References cited | 11 |
Research funders spend considerable efforts collecting information on the outcomes of the research they fund. To help funders track publication output associated with their funding, Crossref initiated FundRef in 2013, enabling publishers to register funding information using persistent identifiers. However, it is hard to assess the coverage of funder metadata because it is unknown how many articles are the result of funded research and should therefore include funder metadata. In this paper we looked at 5,004 publications reported by researchers to be the result of funding by a specific funding agency: the Dutch Research Council NWO. Only 67% of these articles contain funding information in Crossref, with a subset acknowledging NWO as funder name and/or Funder IDs linked to NWO (53% and 45%, respectively). Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Dimensions are all able to infer additional funding information from funding statements in the full text of the articles. Funding information in Lens largely corresponds to that in Crossref, with some additional funding information likely taken from PubMed. We observe interesting differences between publishers in the coverage and completeness of funding metadata in Crossref compared to proprietary databases, highlighting the potential to increase the quality of open metadata on funding
Funding Agency · Identifier · Library science · MEDLINE · Metadata · Political science · Public relations · Scopus · Web of science · World Wide Web · Computer Science · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · Research Data Management Practices · scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Are Nature Index journals a valid basis for academic assessment
Public funding accountability
Investigating the temporal dynamics of topic variation, consistency, and diversity in funding and funded papers
Reference coverage analysis of OpenAlex compared to Web of Science and Scopus
Co-funding networks as a new tool in research evaluation
Impact of the 2022 OSTP memo
Tracking transformative agreements through open metadata
Completeness degree of publication metadata in eight free-access scholarly databases
Kriterien zur Sicherstellung der Reproduzierbarkeit quantitativ-empirischer Studien
| Citations per year | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2023 - 2026 (4) |
| Highly cited | No |