Dataset: The availability and completeness of open funder metadata - Case study for publications funded by the Dutch Research Council

Data and code belonging to the manuscript: 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 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 therefore should 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 potential to increase the quality of open metadata on funding. [2026-03-25 Dataset updated to add data for OpenAlex and OpenAIRE] This dataset contains the following files: DOIs_unique_CR_Lens_Wos_Scopus_Dim_OAX_OpenAIRE.csv - [updated] Dataset of unique DOIs (n= 5,004) with collected information from Crossref and presence/absence of funder information in Lens, Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions NWO_funder_names_Crossref.txt - List of funder name variants for NWO found in Crossref Google_Apps_Script.js - Google Apps Script for retrieving information from Crossref and processing Dimensions results DOI_cleaning.R - R script for cleaning DOIs GBQ_script_OpenAIRE.sql - SQL script for retrieving funder information from OpenAIRE (using ORION-dbs community datasets)本数据集及配套代码源自以下研究论文：《开放资助者元数据的可用性与完整性——荷兰研究委员会（Dutch Research Council, NWO）资助论文的案例研究》 摘要：科研资助方通常会投入大量精力收集其所资助研究的成果相关信息。为帮助资助方追踪与其资助项目相关的学术产出，Crossref于2013年推出了FundRef平台，允许出版商使用持久标识符登记资助信息。然而，由于无法知晓究竟有多少论文属于受资助研究范畴、理应收录资助者元数据，因此评估资助者元数据的覆盖范围颇具难度。 本研究分析了5004篇由研究者报告为受特定资助机构——荷兰研究委员会（NWO）——资助的学术论文。其中仅有67%的论文在Crossref中收录了资助信息，分别有53%的论文明确标注NWO为资助方名称，45%的论文关联了指向NWO的资助者标识符（Funder IDs）。 Web of Science（WoS）、Scopus与Dimensions均可通过论文全文中的资助声明推断出额外的资助信息。Lens平台中的资助信息与Crossref的收录情况大体一致，其中部分额外资助信息或源自PubMed。 本研究发现，相较于商业数据库，不同出版商在Crossref中收录的资助元数据的覆盖范围与完整性存在显著差异，这表明提升开放资助元数据质量仍有较大空间。 [2026-03-25 数据集更新：新增OpenAlex与OpenAIRE相关数据] 本数据集包含以下文件： 1. DOIs_unique_CR_Lens_Wos_Scopus_Dim_OAX_OpenAIRE.csv - [已更新] 收录5004个唯一数字对象标识符（DOIs）的数据集，包含从Crossref获取的相关信息，以及Lens、Web of Science、Scopus与Dimensions中是否存在资助者元数据的标记 2. NWO_funder_names_Crossref.txt - Crossref中收录的NWO资助方名称变体列表 3. Google_Apps_Script.js - 用于从Crossref获取信息并处理Dimensions检索结果的Google Apps脚本 4. DOI_cleaning.R - 用于清洗DOIs的R脚本 5. GBQ_script_OpenAIRE.sql - 用于从OpenAIRE（依托ORION-dbs社区数据集）获取资助者元数据的SQL脚本