Funding Information
Grant numbers, funder names, funder DOIs
Justification
Grant information provides provenance and enables funder-level analytics. Particularly important for NIH as a funder tracking compliance with data sharing mandates.
Practical Guide
Add grant info. Critical for funder compliance (NIH DMS Policy).
Funding information shows a 0.03x citation ratio — the lowest in the framework. But this is expected: funded datasets often have longer embargoes and restrictive data use agreements that suppress citations. SHARE values this signal for provenance completeness and funder compliance tracking. It's critical for NIH DMS Policy compliance, not citation optimization.
Why this signal matters despite the numbers
The 0.03x citation ratio is the lowest in the framework, but it's expected. Funded datasets often have longer embargoes and restrictive DUAs. SHARE values this for provenance completeness and funder compliance tracking — critical for NIH DMS Policy.
For Repositories
- Add structured funding reference fields (funder name, grant number, funder DOI)
- Map to DataCite #19 FundingReference
- Auto-link to funder registries (Crossref Funder Registry)
For Depositors
- Always include your grant number and funder name
- Use the Crossref Funder ID for machine readability
- This is required by NIH DMS Policy — non-compliance risks funding
NIH DMS Policy compliance. Three standards converge. Negative citation ratio reflects embargo/DUA effects, not quality.
Standards Sources
Convergence score: 3/4 independent sources —
| Standard | Field / Property | Obligation Level |
|---|---|---|
| DataCite 4.6 | #19 FundingReference | Recommended |
| schema.org | funder | Recommended |
| RDA FAIR | RDA-R1.2-01M | Important |
FAIR Principle Alignment
Primary mapping: Reusable (R1.2)
- R1.2: (Meta)data are associated with detailed provenance
RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Indicators:
- RDA-R1.2-01M: Metadata includes provenance information according to community-specific standards
How This Signal Is Measured
Presence of funder name + grant number. Binary: at least one funding reference.
Empirical Evidence (Zenodo, n=1.3M)
Per-signal statistics use Zenodo as the primary validation source because it is the largest general-purpose repository with structured DataCite metadata, natural variance across all 25 signals, and available citation/usage data. Domain-specific repositories exhibit ceiling effects or restricted variance that preclude per-signal discrimination. Cross-repository validation is reported separately.
Prevalence
23.1%
of Zenodo datasets
Citation Lift
~0x
vs. datasets without
Data Source
Zenodo (CERN)
1,328,100 records analyzed
Interpretation: Funding information shows negative naive citation lift. This is expected: funded datasets often have longer embargoes and restrictive data use agreements. The negative correlation actually strengthens SHARE's case — we measure documentation completeness, not citation popularity. NIH values this signal for compliance tracking.
Quantitative Evidence
Scoring Formula
funding_reference ∈ record → 4 pts
Contribution: 4 of 100 points · Engagement bucket (0–20)
With Signal Present
306,165
datasets (23.1%)
μ = 0.010 citations/dataset
Without Signal
1,021,935
datasets (76.9%)
μ = 0.314 citations/dataset
Rate Ratio
0.03
95% CI: [0.03–0.03]
P-value
< 0.001
z = -189.82
Significance
Method: Poisson rate ratio · Source: Zenodo (n = 1,328,100)
Note: Negative lift expected: funded datasets often have longer embargoes and restrictive DUAs. SHARE values this signal for provenance completeness and funder compliance tracking (critical for NIH DMS Policy), not citation prediction.
E — Engagement Bucket
All signals in this bucket: