# Funding acknowledgment analysis:Queries and Caveats

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00245 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/1601.00245/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 3 Jan 2016.

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Caveats for the use of Web of Science Core Collection in old literature retrieval and historical bibliometric analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.11521/) (2021)
- [From Static Bibliometrics to Dynamic Knowledge Graphs: An LLM-Powered Framework for Modernizing Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) Analytics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.21327/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Thomson Reuters' Web of Science (WoS) began systematically collecting acknowledgment information in August 2008. Since then, bibliometric analysis of funding acknowledgment (FA) has been growing and has aroused intense interest and attention from both academia and policy makers. Examining the distribution of FA by citation index database, by language, and by acknowledgment type, we noted coverage limitations and potential biases in each analysis. We argue that in spite of its great value, bibliometric analysis of FA should be used with caution.