Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37483361›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2023

Discrepancies among Scopus and Web of Science, coverage of funding information in medical journal articles: a follow-up study.

Peter Kokol

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Peter Kokolpeter.kokol@um.si, University of Maribor, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Koroška ulica 46, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9102-9359

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This follow-up study aims to determine if and how the coverage of funding information in Web of Science Core Collection (WoS) and Scopus changed from 2015 to 2021. Methods: The number of all funded articles published in 2021 was identified in WoS and Scopus bibliographic databases using bibliometric analysis on a sample of 52 prestigious medical journals. Results: The analysis of the number of funded articles with funding information showed statistically significant differences between Scopus and WoS due to substantial differences in the number of funded articles between some single journals. Conclusion: Due to significant differences in the number of funded articles indexed in WoS and Scopus, which might be attributed to the different protocols for handling funding data in WoS and Scopus, we would still advise using both databases to obtain and analyze funding information.

Indexed as

BibliometricsPublicationsDatabases, BibliographicDatabases, FactualFollow-Up Studiesbibliometricsfunding acknowledgementResearch funding

Identifiers

PMID37483361
PMCPMC10361553

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.