“CRKN and the ORCID-CA Consortium are pleased to welcome Érudit to ORCID-CA. By becoming a member of ORCID-CA, Érudit aims to promote the use of ORCID identifiers among its community and integrate the ORCID unique and persistent identifier registry into its platform. The Érudit.org platform is now the main access point for research in the humanities and social sciences in Canada. Its collections, mostly open access, are consulted worldwide by both academic researchers and the general public….”
“The Dutch Research Council (NWO) has published its Persistent Identifier (PID) strategy to improve its capacity for analysing the impact of research. In the Persistent Identifier (PID) strategy NWO describes how it will gradually implement PIDs in the coming years. PIDs are an increasingly important component of scholarly communication because of the increased digitisation of research. They ensure that research is findable and contribute to save researchers time and effort.
The NWO PID strategy can be summarised by the following five recommendations:
Implement ORCID ID for researchers into grant application, peer review, and project reporting workflows.
Implement Crossref Grant ID in grant application and project reporting workflows.
Implement research organisation IDs in grant application and project reporting workflows.
Contribute to shaping the national PID landscape by participating in the ORCID-NL consortium and in a future PID Advisory Board.
Collaborate with other funders in the international PID landscape, for instance within the context of Science Europe….”
“Hello, and welcome to the June issue of the Open Research Quarterly Update (Digest). Here in the Open Research Services team at Jisc our mission is to help members embrace the benefits of open research by removing barriers, embedding open practices and developing open infrastructure. Much of our focus across Jisc involves working with the sector to negotiate agreements and develop services which underpin open research. This quarter’s update includes numerous examples of this in action.
Publications Router continues to expand its publishers’ contributions, while the Sherpa team have developed a new dataset which will provide details of Transitional Agreements to our users. In addition, Jisc Collections have been working with SCONUL to provide the Unsub dashboard. This month sees the first meeting of the Research Identifier National Coordinating Council (RINCC) on 21st June, which will coincide with the publication of a Cost Benefit Analysis Report, funded by the UK Persistent Identifiers (PIDs) for Open Access project….”
Abstract: In many countries around the world that use authorship and academic papers for career advancement and recognition, the accurate identity of participating authors is vital. ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID), an author disambiguation tool that was created in 2012, is being vociferously implemented across a wide swathe of journals, including by many leading publishers. In some countries, authors who publish in indexed journals, particularly in journals that carry a Clarivate Analytics’ Journal Impact Factor, are rewarded, sometimes even monetarily. A strong incentive to cheat and abuse the publication ethos thus exists. There has been a recent spike in the detection of papers apparently derived from paper mills that have multiple issues with figures. The use of such figures across many papers compromises the integrity of the content in all those papers, with widespread ramifications for the integrity of the biomedical literature and of journals that may be gamed by academics. The use of ORCID does not guarantee the authenticity of authors associated with a paper mill-derived paper, nor does it fortify the paper’s integrity. These weaknesses of ORCID may dampen trust in this tool, especially if the ORCID platform is being populated by “ghost” (empty) ORCID accounts of academics whose identities cannot be clearly verified, or disposable accounts (perhaps created by paper mill operators) that are used only once, exclusively to pass the paper submission step. Open-source forensic tools to assist academics, editors and publishers to detect problematic figures, and more stringent measures by ORCID to ensure robust author identity verification, are urgently required to protect themselves, and the wider biomedical literature.
This briefing paper aims to support decision makers at research organisations and research funders to develop new monitoring exercises or assess and improve existing processes to measure the Open Access status of publications.
The availability of data and information on the current state of scholarly publishing is invaluable to help advance Open Access. Given the complexity of the scholarly publishing system, this involves a multitude of decisions.
This briefing paper provides recommendations on the three main questions an organisation should answer to develop a monitoring exercise: Why, What, and How?
Examples of different monitoring exercises have been selected to represent different use cases, organisational setups, data sources, and strategies of interpretation.
“The third CHORUS Forum meeting, held last week, is a relatively new entrant into the scholarly communication meeting calendar. The meeting has proven to be a rare opportunity to bring together publishers, researchers, librarians, and research funders. I helped organize and moderated a session during the Forum, on the theme of “Making the Future of Open Research Work.” You can watch my session, which looked at new models for sustainable and robust open access (OA) publishing, along with the rest of the meeting in the video below.
The session focuses on the operationalization of the move to open access and the details of what it takes to experiment with a new business model. The model the community has the most experience with, the individual author paying an article-processing-charge (APC), works really well for some authors, in some subject areas, in some geographies. But it is not a universal solution to making open access work and it creates new inequities as it resolves others….
Some of the key takeaways for me were found in the commonalities across all of the models. The biggest hurdle that each organization faced in executing its plans was gathering and analyzing author data. As Sara put it, “Data hygiene makes or breaks all of these models.” For PLOS and the ACM, what they’re asking libraries to support is authorship – the model essentially says “this many papers had authors from your institution and what you pay will largely be based on the volume of your output.” But disambiguating author identity, and especially identifying which institutions each represents, remains an enormous problem. While we do have persistent identifiers (PIDs) like ORCID, and the still-under-development ROR, their use is not universal, and we still lack a unifying mechanism to connect the various PIDs into a simple, functional tool to support this type of analysis.
One solution would be requiring authors to accurately identify their host institutions from a controlled vocabulary, but this runs up against most publishers’ desire to streamline the article submission process. There’s a balance to be struck, but probably one that’s going to ask authors to provide more accurate and detailed information….
[M]oving beyond the APC is essential to the long-term viability of open access, and there remains much experimentation to be done….”
“Most are familiar with registering Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), a type of Persistent Identifier (PID), to create lasting records for online research outputs. Registering DOIs for journal articles and other scholarly content and adding DOI links to references when possible is one of the best steps publishers can take to support research linking and discovery. But publishers shouldn’t stop at creating DOIs for articles. There are many other PIDs to consider adding to article-level metadata to support research discovery, assessment, and reuse. Additional PIDs can also expand the potential reach of content outputs when included in metadata registered with discovery services like Crossref.
During the NISO Plus session “Linked Data and the Future of Information Sharing,” Christian Herzog, CEO of Dimensions, and Shelley Stall, Senior Director of Data Leadership at the American Geophysical Union, spoke to emerging PIDs for linking research outputs by not only the content referenced in them but also the scholars, institutions, and funders associated with them. Among the PIDs they said all publishers should consider adding to their metadata are:
ORCID identifiers for authors and their history of research contributions
Institutional IDs such as those developed by GRID, which is the seed data set for the community-led ROR open research organization identifier registry
Grant IDs and funder IDs, such as those in The Open Funder Registry…”
“As I have been working with domain repositories to understand and describe their practices and apply for Core Trust Seal certification, I have been struck by the close, long-term relationships that these repositories form with their communities. In some cases, like UNAVCO, the repository is an integral part of an extensive community support system that extends from proposal planning and writing, through project initiation and implementation, data collection, management, and archive, to publication of results and access to data by other community members. Scientists, engineers, logistics specialists, data managers, software developers, and educators work together to create and extend our understanding of the shape of the earth and how it changes (the science of Geodesy).
The UNAVCO Community described the responsibilities of players in open science communities during 2012 (https://doi.org/10.1029/2012EO260006) and developed an open data policy based on those responsibilities. These responsibilities included identifying datasets with PIDs and connecting data to papers with citations, that is, establishing an important element of the PID Graph: connections between papers and data.
I introduced the concept of Connectivity last month and have been thinking about it ever since. Connectivity measures how well research objects or collections of research objects are connected to the global research web, represented by the PID Graph. These connections depend on identifiers for all kinds of research objects. I am initially focusing on people, identified by ORCIDs, and organizations, identified by RORs.
As the breadth of identifiers and connections continues to expand, I made the leap from the strong connections between real people and organizations in the UNAVCO Community and connections between these entities in the PID Graph. Specifically, I wondered if the multitudinous real-world connections could help populate identifiers in the metadata and related connections in the PID Graph. I begin the exploration of this question here with UNAVCO datasets described in DataCite….”
“When publishers speak about linked research and scholarship only in terms of the market transition to open access, it is an inherently limiting view of scholarly research. In this context, concern for the version of record reflects a business interest, not a scholarly value. As a stewardship strategy, insisting on only publisher-hosted versions of record does not align with a modern research workflow inclusive of multiple tools and potential repositories. Recently, a number of publishers have expressed the “version of record” concern with regards to the PlanS “Rights Retention Strategy.” Yet, as was pointed out in the response by cOAlition S, establishing and maintaining relationships to other versions of articles or research assets has already been shown to be successful in disciplinary and scholarly communities.
Whereas the published, printed version of the research article was once the authoritative source of research, new modes of publishing and the publishing of other research outputs (postprints, protocols, data, code, etc.) have made the term “version of record” all but irrelevant. The scholarly communications landscape has already moved into what Herbert Van de Sompel, Bianca Kramer, and Jeroen Bosman call a “record of versions,” where persistent identifiers (PIDs) enhance the discoverability and linking of research outputs regardless of where those outputs are housed….
The continued insistence on “version of record”—including using the VOR date instead of the issue date to calculate journal impact factors—is also a subtle attempt by some commercial publishers to continue to exert control over the entire scholarly communications ecosystem and to be seen as sole authorities or stewards of research publishing. Thus, there is a pressing need to shift the dialogue from a single “version of record” to a “record of versions” that encompasses multiple versions and outputs, and makes room for a more diverse and inclusive publishing environment….”
“A new database established by a collaborative team including Penn State University Libraries aims to provide centralized, consistent access to scholarly research metadata for Penn State faculty research, while eliminating much of the administrative work involved with research-activity reporting software used by higher education faculty.
The Researcher Metadata Database (RMD) aggregates content from multiple scholarly research databases including Digital Measures, Pure, the Penn State Electronic Theses and Dissertations database, National Science Foundation (NSF), Open Access Button and Clarivate (formerly Web of Science). RMD’s function not only helps to create a single access programming interface (API) for faculty profiles and department web pages, but also facilitates implementation of Penn State’s Open Access Policy and the ability to generate reports on common data requests.
A unique feature of the RMD Is the ability to push information to the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) system, whose identifiers are increasingly used by funding organizations such as NSF and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a source of information on research activity, including biographical sketches of researchers….”
Abstract: This article provides a case study about an institutional ORCID initiative at Florida State University. The authors describe how they launched the initiative with minimal resources and staff time at their disposal. The authors also describe specific strategies that can be replicated at other institutions, including identifying the right partners and most compelling use cases, and taking advantage of high-impact outreach strategies that provide the most exposure for the least time invested.
Abstract: In 2019 we became increasingly aware of authors at Imperial College London choosing to publish grey literature through local website PDF or full text hosting. Recognising the need to improve the institutional open access repository as a venue of choice to publish or co-publish grey literature, we developed a publishing model of identifiers (DOIs and ORCIDs) and metrics (indexing, citations and Altmetric coverage). Some of the incentives already existed in the repository but had not previously been explicitly communicated as benefits; whilst others required technical infrastructure development and scholarly communications education for authors. As of September 2020, a 206% increase in deposit of one type of grey literature has been observed on the previous full year, including Imperial’s influential COVID-19 reports.
“Researchers can now have their grant peer review contributions made visible and recognised when added to their ORCID Record by the UKRI’s Je-S funding platform.
UKRI and nearly 100 UK Higher Education and research organisations are members of ORCID, an international non-profit organisation that is committed to help achieve recognition and support for researchers by linking their contributions to the researcher’s unique ORCID identifier.
UKRI have recently announced that they have implemented the ORCID reviewer recognition feature in their grants management system, Je-S….”
“UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) has developed a new feature in its current funding systems to recognise formally the contributions of UKRI reviewers via ORCID, a unique identifier tool for individuals.
The implementation of ORCID reviewer recognition went live today (23 November 2020). It will enable UKRI review contributions to be publicly displayed without compromising the anonymity and confidentiality of the assessment process. This will be done by issuing a ‘review credit’ that will be displayed in individual reviewers ORCID profiles….”
“At the end of 2012, just three months after we launched the ORCID registry, we were thrilled to be able to share that nearly 50,000 researchers had already registered for an iD. Ten months after that, we celebrated the ORCID record growing to nearly 250,000 (with 80 Members!) All told, it took us just a little over two years to grow to 1,000,000 iDs, and nine months after that, in 2015, we hit 1.5 million iDs.
Since 2015 we’ve been steadily growing and exceeding even our own high expectations:
In 2015, the record grew by 788,650 records,
In 2016, by 1,068,295,
In 2017, 1,388,796,
In 2018, it grew by 1,585,851,
In 2019, by 2,006,672, and
In 2020 (so far), it’s grown by 2,293,631!
And just last week ORCID hit another major milestone: 10 million registered ORCID iDs! …”