开放资助者元数据的可用性和完整性:荷兰研究委员会资助出版物的案例研究

IF 4.1 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Bianca Kramer, H. D. Jonge
{"title":"开放资助者元数据的可用性和完整性:荷兰研究委员会资助出版物的案例研究","authors":"Bianca Kramer, H. D. Jonge","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract 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.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"583-599"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The availability and completeness of open funder metadata: Case study for publications funded by the Dutch Research Council\",\"authors\":\"Bianca Kramer, H. D. Jonge\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/qss_a_00210\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quantitative Science Studies\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"583-599\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quantitative Science Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00210\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quantitative Science Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00210","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

研究资助者花费大量精力收集他们资助的研究成果的信息。为了帮助资助者跟踪与其资助相关的出版物产出,Crossref于2013年发起了FundRef,使出版商能够使用持久标识符注册资助信息。然而,很难评估资助者元数据的覆盖范围,因为不知道有多少文章是资助研究的结果,因此应该包括资助者元数据。在这篇论文中,我们研究了5004篇由研究人员报告的论文,这些论文都是由一个特定的资助机构资助的:荷兰研究委员会NWO。这些文章中只有67%在Crossref中包含资助信息,其中一部分承认NWO是资助者姓名和/或与NWO相关的资助者id(分别为53%和45%)。Web of Science (WoS)、Scopus和Dimensions都能够从文章全文中的资助声明中推断出额外的资助信息。Lens中的资金信息与Crossref中的基本一致,还有一些额外的资金信息可能来自PubMed。我们观察到,与专有数据库相比,出版商在Crossref中资助元数据的覆盖范围和完整性方面存在有趣的差异,这突出了提高开放资助元数据质量的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The availability and completeness of open funder metadata: Case study for publications funded by the Dutch Research Council
Abstract 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Quantitative Science Studies
Quantitative Science Studies INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
46
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信