“Guest Speaker: Hannah Rosen, Strategist for Content & Scholarly Communication Initiatives at Lyrasis:
What is IRUS? General overview
How does IRUS work with ORCID?
How does IRUS work with DOIs?
Is there anything else we need to know about IRUS?
Compatibility
Installation
How to participate…”
“Author requirements
Authors must comply with their funders’ policies relating to open access and research data management.
Authors must register for an individual ORCiD identifier and should link it to their University Publications Database profile [2], include it on any personal webpage, when submitting publications, when applying for grants, and in any research workflow to ensure that the individual is credited for their work and that the correct institutional affiliation is achieved.
Authors must use a standardised institutional affiliation “University of Leeds” in all research outputs to ensure clear affiliation with the University of Leeds.
Authors must specify authors’ contributions in all research outputs to ensure individuals’ roles are identifiable and duly recognised.
Authors must include a Data Access Statement in all research outputs even where there are no data associated with the publication or the data are inaccessible. The statement informs readers where the associated underlying research materials are available and how they can be accessed.
Authors must acknowledge the source of grant funding associated with a research output in all research outputs. Information about the grant should also be linked, by the author, to the record of the publication in the University Publications Database. Grant information in the University Publications Database is fed automatically from the University’s Grant Information System [3].
Authors must retain the necessary rights to make the accepted manuscripts of research articles, including reviews and conference papers, publicly available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. Recommended wording to include in manuscript submissions is in Appendix 1. This requirement does not apply but is strongly recommended for outputs solely or jointly authored by PGRs (only).
Authors must record bibliographic details of all research outputs in the University’s publications database. For peer-reviewed research articles, including reviews and conference papers, this must be done as soon as possible after acceptance for publication. When creating the record in the University’s publications database, complete the appropriate fields to confirm that a data access and a rights retention statement have been added to the output itself.
Authors must deposit full text copies of final accepted peer-reviewed research articles, including reviews and conference papers into the institutional repository, via the University’s publications database as soon as possible after acceptance for publication. Where the output is already available open access via the publisher website a link may be provided instead. The deposit of other outputs e.g. monographs is also encouraged where copyright permits.
Where copyright allows and there are no confidentiality or commercial constraints, the research outputs in the institutional repository must be made ‘open access’, i.e. freely accessible over the internet.
Outputs must be made open access as soon as possible after acceptance [4]….”
“Among the main findings on the topic of journal production were:
• Compared to 2020, there was apparent growth in journals producing HTML articles.
• Full-text XML article production remained flat since 2020 (38% in 2020 and 2022).
• 50%+ respondents included ORCIDs and DOIs in metadata, but other PIDs like author/ contributor roles, funder IDs, and organizational IDs had lower adoption rates. That said, some PIDs increased across the two surveys, including Funder ID (20% in 2022 versus 16% in 2020) and CRediT (22% in 2022 versus 16% in 2020).
• Most respondents said PDF and HTML are the most important article formats for their readers, as well as reaching publishing program goals.
• When asked to rate their publishers’ primary production goals, most respondents chose “journal/article search engine optimization” (86% reported that this was “very” or “somewhat” important).
Among the main findings on the topic of journal access were:
• 95% of respondents said at least one of their publisher’s journals offered OA options.
• 80% of respondents said their organization utilizes fully-OA publishing models.
• When asked to rate their publishers’ primary funding/revenue priorities, most respondents chose “identifying viable funding model(s) for publishing one or more fully-OA journals” (68% reported it’s “very” or “somewhat” important).
• Institutional subsidies and grants were seen as having the highest OA funding potential…”
“Lisa Hinchliffe, University Library Professor and Coordinator for Research and Teaching Professional Development, has been appointed Chair of the Open Research and Contributor ID (ORCID) Board. ORCID is an international not-for-profit organization that facilitates transparent and reliable connections between researchers, their work, and their affiliations within digital frameworks.”
“Imagine if the integrity of the publishing process didn’t rely purely on publishers’ ability to detect fraud, malpractice, or mistakes based on the limited information available in a submitted manuscript. Instead, what if this responsibility were spread throughout the ecosystem, from funder grant management system, to data management plan, to data center, to lab notebook, to preprint, to published version of record, making use of trusted assertions to build an open, verifiable research environment that also leverages transparency so that publishers, funders, institutions, and other researchers could all trace findings and claims back through the whole research process?
The vision I laid out above may sound utopian, but much of the technology and tools required already exist. As well as the TREs [Trusted Research Environments], which can be seen as a model for traceability, and ORCID trust markers, which illustrate how the same thing can be done securely in the open, initiatives like Center for Open Science, and Octopus show how a range of outputs and activities can be used to document the entire research process.
The problem is not technology, it’s a wicked mix of perverse incentives, network effects, business model inertia, and sustainability challenges that lock us all into the same restrictive ideas about what constitutes a research publication, and what counts for prestige and career advancement. To address the range of challenges from poor research practice to industrial-scale fraud by paper mills, we need a whole-sector approach that involves funders, institutional research management and libraries, researchers, and publishers. As fellow Chef Alice Meadows and I wrote in a previous post, it really does take a village, and cross-sector collaboration is vital to building the interoperable research information infrastructure needed to connect the people, places, and things of the scholarly ecosystem in a way that is verifiable and trusted.”
From the new Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) policy. The policy doesn’t cover all NZ public funders. But MBIE is the largest NZ public funder.
“5.1 Summary
This policy requires that all peer-reviewed publications arising from research funded through research investment processes administered by MBIE be made available with Open Access (free of charge, online access for any person) through one of the approved pathways. These must be made available either:
(a) immediately on publication; or
(b) where a publisher policy requires an embargo period, immediately at the end of the embargo period or 12 months after the date of such publication, whichever is earlier.
5.2 Pathways to Open Access
For the purpose of this policy, the following publication pathways are considered acceptable:
(a) publication in a fully Open Access journal (i.e., Gold OA); or,
(b) deposit of an acceptable version in a suitable online repository (i.e., Green OA)…
5.2.3 Author rights
Authors must publish their outputs in a way that allows them to retain sufficient rights to comply with the policy, either by retaining copyright over their published works (as opposed to transferring copyright to the publisher), or by publishing their work in a journal that permits them to deposit their manuscript in an Open Access repository….”
“The Uniarts Helsinki Open Access policy describes the general principles of publishing. The policy applies to researchers, staff and students working at the University of the Arts Helsinki. Publications of the University of the Arts Helsinki are typically both artistic and scientific in nature.
We follow the guidelines on responsible conduct of research determined by the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK) in the publishing and openness of our research results.
Uniarts Helsinki requires open access publishing when possible.
Uniarts supports publishing in Gold open access publication channels through a centralized APC fund, subject to specified criteria.
Uniarts recommends the use of Creative Commons licences in publishing text-based research outputs. If the research funder is the Academy of Finland or the European Commission, CC BY 4.0 should be used. When publishing with open licenses, the author(s) retains the copyright.
Uniarts recommends that researchers register their ORCID iD and add it to their publication data.
Uniarts requires that researchers self-archive their scientific and peer-reviewed research publications when allowed by the publisher. Uniarts recommends researchers to upload the Final Draft (Author Accepted Manuscript, AAM) or the Publisher’s PDF to Uniarts Helsinki’s institutional repository. Artistic research publications or their parts are linked to the metadata in the repository.
The author is responsible for evaluating the quality and responsibility of the publication channel they have chosen to publish in.
The theses of master’s, licentiate’s and doctoral (both scientific and artistic) degrees are published, as appropriate, in Uniarts Helsinki’s open institutional repository Taju and also for example in Research Catalogue.
Training, support and guidance is provided for open access publishing.
The progress of open access publishing is monitored at Uniarts through the strategic goals of research….”
Reporting and presentation of research activities and outcome for research institutions in official, normative standards are more and more important and are the basis to comply with reporting duties. Institutional Current Research Information Systems (CRIS) serve as important databases or data sources for external and internal reporting, which should ideally be connected with interfaces to the operational systems for automated loading routines to extract relevant research information. This investigation evaluates whether (semi-) automated reporting using open, public research information collected via persistent identifiers (PIDs) for organizations (ROR), persons (ORCID), and research outputs (DOI) can reduce effort of reporting. For this purpose, internally maintained lists of persons to whom an ORCID record could be assigned (internal ORCID person lists) of two different German research institutions—Osnabrück University (UOS) and the non-university research institution TIB—Leibniz Information Center for Science and Technology Hannover—are used to investigate ORCID coverage in external open data sources like FREYA PID Graph (developed by DataCite), OpenAlex and ORCID itself. Additionally, for UOS a detailed analysis of discipline specific ORCID coverage is conducted. Substantial differences can be found for ORCID coverage between both institutions and for each institution regarding the various external data sources. A more detailed analysis of ORCID distribution by discipline for UOS reveals disparities by research area—internally and in external data sources. Recommendations for future actions can be derived from our results: Although the current level of coverage of researcher IDs which could automatically be mapped is still not sufficient to use persistent identifier-based extraction for standard (automated) reporting, it can already be a valuable input for institutional CRIS.
“Earlier this year, DataCite consortium lead and partner organization, the Australian Research Data Commons (ARDC), together with Australian ORCID consortium lead organization, the Australian Access Federation (AAF), commissioned the MoreBrains Cooperative to undertake a cost benefit analysis of the incentives for adoption of persistent identifiers (PIDs) by the Australian research sector. The resulting report, Incentives to invest in identifiers: A cost-benefit analysis of persistent identifiers in Australian research systems, published in September, found that 80% adoption of five priority PIDs would lead to savings of 38,000 researcher days per year. The direct financial cost of this wasted effort is close to AUD24 million per year (around 15M USD/ EUR); accounting for the opportunity cost associated with technology transfer and innovation-led growth, the savings increase to a staggering AUD84 million per year!
The PIDs in question are ORCID iDs for people, ROR IDs for institutions, ARDC’s own RAiDs for projects, Crossref and DataCite DOIs for research outputs, and Crossref DOIs for grants. In addition, as part of a longer-term strategy, the report recommends that work should continue on developing PIDs for instruments, expanding the uses of IGSN IDs for samples, and potentially other IDs, in collaboration with other research communities. Other recommendations include: …”
“ORCID was founded on a set of 10 principles, some of which directly mirror the goals of the Open Access initiative. In particular, our 7th founding principle states: All data contributed to ORCID by researchers or claimed by them will be available in standard formats for free download (subject to the researchers’ own privacy settings) that are updated once a year and released under a CC0 waiver. This is why we publish our annual public data file, as we do each year, usually during Open Access Week.
Our 2021 data file was downloaded 14,299 times and received one citation. In 2020, the data file contributed to the data visualization that showed the digital footprint of Covid-19 research in an astounding map produced by the Research Graph Foundation.
The file is available in XML format, however, if you prefer JSON, you can use our ORCID Conversion Library available in our Github repository. This Java application enables the generation of JSON from XML in the default version ORCID schema format.
The data is divided into 12 subsets for easier download and use. The first set contains the full record summary for each record. The other 11 contain the activities for each record, including full work data. We also have an article for those who need help working with bulk data.
We look forward to seeing how the research community will take advantage of this free, open source of data that is an asset to the research ecosystem. Do you have plans to use the public data file? Let us know by contacting us at comms@orcid.org or Tweet us @ORCID_org to let us know. ”
“Join us as we celebrate ORCID at 10!
To fulfill the promise of a robust, inclusive web of scholarly communications, two things are critical: a unique, persistent-identifier (PID) system for digital items, such as published works, and another such system for the people creating those works. With that twin PID foundation in place, discoverability and credit attribution would improve dramatically, opening new channels for collaboration and for tracking and assessing the impact of research across the globe. This has been the vision of ORCID from the beginning! In this webinar, we’ll reflect on ORCID’s first decade: how iD was created, how our use cases have evolved over time, and the challenges we faced (and overcame!) We’ll also share some of our biggest surprises and lessons learned as PID infrastructure has evolved to continue generating trust in research. Finally, we’ll look ahead at what the future may hold for ORCID, PID infrastructure, and the entire research ecosystem. …”
Abstract: The role played by research scholars in the dissemination of scientific knowledge on social media has always been a central topic in social media metrics (altmetrics) research. Different approaches have been implemented to identify and characterize active scholars on social media platforms like Twitter. Some limitations of past approaches were their complexity and, most importantly, their reliance on licensed scientometric and altmetric data. The emergence of new open data sources like OpenAlex or Crossref Event Data provides opportunities to identify scholars on social media using only open data. This paper presents a novel and simple approach to match authors from OpenAlex with Twitter users identified in Crossref Event Data. The matching procedure is described and validated with ORCID data. The new approach matches nearly 500,000 matched scholars with their Twitter accounts with a level of high precision and moderate recall. The dataset of matched scholars is described and made openly available to the scientific community to empower more advanced studies of the interactions of research scholars on Twitter.
“As open research in Kenya grows in popularity—especially in the areas of higher education and academia—ORCID adoption has increased as well. ORCID Membership in Kenya represents a diverse group of constituents, including PAMJ in publishing, Strathmore University in higher education, The African Academy of Sciences in funding, and the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) as a key supporter of open research.
In order to ensure quality in the science, technology, and innovation sector, every researcher must obtain a government license to conduct research in Kenya. To support this requirement, NACOSTI provides research licensing, registration of research institutions in Kenya, and accreditation of research institutions….”
“Crossref, DataCite and ORCID work together to provide foundational open infrastructure that is integral to the global research ecosystem. We offer unique, persistent identifiers (PIDs) — Crossref and DataCite DOIs for research outputs and ORCID iDs for people — alongside collecting comprehensive, open metadata that is non-proprietary, accessible, interoperable, and available across borders, disciplines, and time.
As sustainable community-driven scholarly infrastructure providers ORCID, Crossref and Datacite, guarantee data provenance and machine-readability. Persistent identifiers combined with open, standardized, and machine readable metadata enable reliable and robust connections to be made between research outputs, organizations, individuals and much more, as well as being beneficial to others who build services and tools on top of the open infrastructure we provide making content more discoverable.
Join us for a webinar on the 27th June at 7am UTC/ 9am CEST / 5pm AEST where we will discuss:
– Who we are
– What we mean by Open Scholarly Infrastructure
– How our organizations work together for the benefit of the scholarly community
– How the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI) help to build trust and accountability as well as ensuring we are around for the long term….”
“Online accounts to keep track of scientific publications, such as Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) or Google Scholar, can be time consuming to maintain and synchronize. Furthermore, the open access status of publications is often not easily accessible, hindering potential opening of closed publications. To lessen the burden of managing personal profiles, we developed a R shiny app that allows publication lists from multiple platforms to be retrieved and consolidated, as well as interactive exploration and comparison of publication profiles. A live version can be found at pubassistant.ch.