CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: Crossref grant linking

  • Linking grants, projects and outputs across the research lifecycle

    Research has a natural arc. A funder makes an award; the award supports a project with a team, activities and a timeline; the project produces outputs — papers, datasets, software, sometimes patents or policy contributions; and those outputs go on to have an impact. It is a single connected story. Yet in most institutions it is recorded as several disconnected ones: the grant lives in a funder’s system and a finance system, the project in a current-research-information system, and the outputs in repositories, journals and ORCID profiles — none of which reliably know about the others. The result is a fractured record in which it is surprisingly hard to answer a basic question: what did this grant actually produce? This article looks at the identifiers and standards that stitch the lifecycle back together, drawing on the research lifecycle domain of the CASRAI Dictionary.

    The fragmentation problem

    The fragmentation is not anyone’s fault; it is a consequence of these stages being managed by different organisations with different systems built at different times. But the cost is real. Funders want to demonstrate what their investment yielded and cannot easily do so. Institutions struggle to report the full output of a project. Researchers re-enter the same grant and output details into system after system. And the connective tissue — this paper came from that project, which was funded by this grant — exists only as prose in acknowledgements, if at all. The fix is to give each entity in the chain a persistent identifier and to record the links between them in a machine-readable way, so the connections survive across systems rather than living in someone’s memory.

    Grant identifiers

    The first link is the grant identifier: a persistent, resolvable identifier for a funding award. When a grant has its own identifier, every output it supports can reference it unambiguously, and the funder can in principle gather everything connected to the award without manual reconciliation. Persistent grant identifiers replace the fragile practice of citing awards by free-text grant numbers — which vary in format, get mistyped and cannot be resolved — with something a machine can follow. This is the foundation on which funder reporting and impact tracking depend, because without a stable handle on the award there is nothing reliable for outputs to point back to.

    RAiD: identifying the project itself

    The middle of the lifecycle — the project — has historically been the least well identified, and this is where RAiD (Research Activity Identifier) comes in. RAiD is an ISO-standard persistent identifier for a research project or activity. Where a grant identifier names the funding and a DOI names an output, RAiD names the project — the connecting entity that ties together the people, the institutions, the funding, and the outputs over the project’s lifetime. A RAiD record can hold these relationships in one place: who is involved (by ORCID), which organisations (by ROR), which awards fund it, and which outputs it generates. That makes the project a first-class, citable node in the graph rather than an implicit gap between funding and publication. Our explainer on what RAiD is covers how the identifier works and how it is used in practice; the essential point is that it fills the long-standing hole in the middle of the lifecycle.

    Crossref grant linking

    On the output side, Crossref grant linking provides the mechanism for connecting published outputs back to the funding that supported them. Funders can register their grants with Crossref, giving each a DOI, and publishers can include funding information in the metadata they deposit when registering an article. The two are then linked: a grant record can surface the outputs that acknowledge it, and an output record carries a resolvable reference to its funding. This turns the funding acknowledgement — previously unstructured prose that no machine could use — into a structured, navigable link. Combined with grant identifiers and RAiD, it completes the chain from funder to output and back again.

    What a fully linked lifecycle enables

    When these identifiers are in place and connected, several things become possible that were previously laborious or impossible. A funder can assemble a complete, automatically maintained picture of what an award produced — papers, datasets, software — for reporting and evaluation. An institution can report the full output of a project without manual collation. A researcher can have their outputs automatically associated with the right grant and project rather than re-keying details. And anyone can traverse the chain in either direction: from a paper to its project, funding and team, or from a grant to everything it enabled. The fractured story becomes a connected one, assembled by following identifiers rather than by hand.

    Credit and consistency across the chain

    A connected lifecycle also makes credit more complete. When outputs are linked to the project and people who produced them, the contributions recorded through the CRediT taxonomy become part of a larger picture — not just who did what on a single paper, but how that work fits into a funded project and a research career. The set of contribution roles is described in our overview of the CRediT roles. For all of this to function, a grant, a project and an output must be described consistently wherever they appear, so that a link made in one system is understood in another. That consistency is what the CASRAI Dictionary provides: the shared vocabulary that lets the whole lifecycle — funding, activity and outputs — be recorded once and connected everywhere.

  • Funding acknowledgements and grant identifiers: closing the loop on research funding

    Almost every research paper carries a sentence of thanks to its funders — “this work was supported by” followed by an agency name and, if you are lucky, a grant number. It takes seconds to write and, in its usual free-text form, it is almost useless as data. A funder trying to answer the simple question “what did our money produce?” finds the answer scattered across thousands of inconsistently worded acknowledgements that no system can reliably aggregate. Closing that loop — connecting the grant that paid for the work to the outputs the work produced — is the problem this article is about, and it belongs to the funding-and-finance domain. For authors, the practical starting point is the guidance on acknowledging funders.

    The free-text problem

    The same funder is written a hundred ways across a corpus: full legal name on one paper, an acronym on the next, a translated form, a former name, a sub-programme mistaken for the parent body, a typo in the grant number. To a human reader the meaning is obvious; to a system trying to count outputs per funder or per grant, every variant is a different string that fails to match. The consequences are concrete. Funders cannot easily demonstrate return on investment, evaluate which schemes produced the most influential work, or check that the open-access and reporting conditions attached to a grant were met. Institutions cannot reconcile what was acknowledged against what was awarded. The information exists on the page; it simply is not in a form anyone can compute with.

    The Open Funder Registry: identifying the funder

    The first half of the fix is to give every funder a single, stable identifier. The Open Funder Registry (originally FundRef, now maintained as part of Crossref’s infrastructure) is an open, curated list of funding bodies, each with a unique funder ID and a controlled record of its name variants, acronyms, and hierarchical relationships to parent and child organisations. When a publisher records a funder ID against an acknowledgement rather than only a free-text name, every variant of “National Institute” collapses onto one entity. The registry does for funders what other registries do for institutions: it replaces a messy display string with a resolvable identifier that carries the meaning.

    The registry also cross-walks to organisation identifiers — many funders are also research organisations, and the alignment between funder IDs and the Research Organization Registry (ROR) lets a body be recognised consistently whether it is being named as a funder or as an affiliation. That cross-walk matters because it stops the funder-data silo and the organisation-data silo from telling different stories about the same institution.

    Crossref grant linking: identifying the grant

    Naming the funder is only half the loop. The more valuable connection is to the specific grant, and that is what Crossref grant linking provides. Crossref operates a grant-registration system in which funders register their awards and receive a grant identifier — a DOI for the grant itself. The grant record carries structured metadata: the funder, the award number, the title, the investigators (ideally with their ORCID iDs), the funded institutions (ideally with ROR IDs), and the award amount and period.

    Once a grant has its own persistent identifier, an output can cite it the way it cites anything else. A published article’s metadata can carry the grant DOI, creating a machine-readable link from the paper back to the award that paid for it. That single link is what closes the loop: instead of inferring the connection from a fragile name-and-number string, a system can follow an identifier from grant to output and back. Funders can then assemble, automatically, the full set of outputs associated with an award — papers, datasets, software, preprints — rather than reconstructing it by hand from acknowledgements.

    How the pieces fit with the wider identifier stack

    Grant linking is most powerful in combination with the other persistent identifiers, because each answers a different question about a funded piece of work:

    • The funder ID answers who paid — the funding body.
    • The grant ID answers under which award — the specific grant.
    • ORCID answers who did the work — the funded researchers.
    • ROR answers where — the institutions that held the award.
    • The output’s DOI answers what was produced.

    Linked together, these turn a pile of disconnected records into a navigable funding graph: this funder, through this grant, supported these researchers at these institutions to produce these outputs. The graph is what makes funder reporting tractable, and its absence is exactly why “outputs by grant” has historically been so painful to compute.

    What authors and institutions can do

    1. Record the funder ID and the grant identifier, not just the name. When a submission system offers to attach a registered funder from the Open Funder Registry, or to record a grant DOI, accept it — that is the step that makes the acknowledgement countable.
    2. Quote the award number exactly as the funder issued it, so that even where a grant DOI is not yet available, the number can be matched reliably.
    3. Attach ORCID iDs and ROR IDs to investigators and institutions in grant and output metadata, so the funding graph connects cleanly at every node.
    4. Treat the acknowledgement as structured data, not prose. A sentence of thanks is a courtesy; the identifiers behind it are what let a funder see what its money produced.

    Crediting the people the funding supported

    Funding metadata records what paid for the work; it does not record who did it. The CRediT taxonomy includes a dedicated Funding acquisition role — the work of securing the financial support that made the project possible — which lets the often-invisible labour of winning a grant be recorded on the resulting paper alongside the other contributions. Grant identifiers connect the award to the output; CRediT connects the people to the work the award funded. Together they ensure that both the money and the human contribution are visible in the record.

    Where shared vocabulary fits

    “Funder”, “grant”, “award”, “acknowledgement”, and “funding statement” are used inconsistently across publishers, funders, and institutions, which is part of why funding data is so hard to reconcile. A shared, federated vocabulary that defines these terms precisely — and points back to the Open Funder Registry and Crossref’s grant-linking schema — is what lets a funding acknowledgement written in one system be understood in another. Supplying that definitional layer is the role the CASRAI dictionary is designed to play; the relevant terms sit in the funding-and-finance domain.

    Related reading