Sources without a CiteScore value: more clarity is required In December 2016, Elsevier launched CiteScore, a new indicator of a journalxc2xb4s impact based on similar principles as the journal impact factor but improving some issues that had been raised about the latter. The inclusion of all document types, an extension on the period of time for its calculation and the access of CiteScore free of charge made this indicator more transparent and comprehensive. However, many sources display xe2x80x9cNAxe2x80x9d instead of a CiteScore value. Since no explanation has been provided by Scopus regarding the significance of this abbreviation form, all the sources categorized by Scopus under the subsubject category xe2x80x9cLibrary and Information Sciencexe2x80x9d were examined. This study shows that 78 sources that displayed the abbreviation form included sources that had been discontinued, others that had a name change, some that had recently been indexed by Scopus and one particular journal that has been covered by Scopus since 2000 that unexplainably has not been assigned a CiteScore. Certainly, explaining the complex use of this abbreviation form would improve the clarity of CiteScore. In fact, it would be advisable to use different abbreviation forms to denote the reasons why any given indexed journal has not been assigned a CiteScore value.

Funding information in Web of Science: An updated overview. Despite the limitations of funding acknowledgment (FA) data in Web of Science (WoS), studies using FA information have increased rapidly over the last several years. Considering this WoSu0027recent practice of updating funding data, this paper further investigates the characteristics and distribution of FA data in four WoS journal citation indexes. The research reveals that FA information coverage variances persist cross all four citation indexes by time coverage, language and document type. Our evidence suggests an improvement in FA information collection in humanity and social science research. Departing from previous studies, we argue that FA text (FT) alone no longer seems an appropriate field to retrieve and analyze funding information, since a substantial number of documents only report funding agency or grant number information in respective fields. Articles written in Chinese have a higher FA presence rate than other nonEnglish WoS publications. This updated study concludes with a discussion of new findings and practical guidance for the future retrieval and analysis of funded research.