Celebrating Open Access Week: Institutional uses of the ORCID Public Data File | ORCID

“Last Friday, ORCID turned eight, and we are about to reach another important milestone: 10 million ORCID iDs! As we do every year, we are celebrating our anniversary and Open Access Week by releasing our Public Data File.

The 2020 Public Data File contains a snapshot of all public record data in the ORCID Registry, is published under a CC0 waiver, and is free for everyone to use. Openness is one of our foundational values, and as part of our commitment to remove barriers to access, we release the file to ensure that all stakeholders have broad access to a vital part of the scholarly communication infrastructure. At the time of writing, the 2019 Public Data File was downloaded more than 35,000 times. 

The file has been used in different projects as a data source for the analysis of relationships and individual trajectories within the research community, scientific migrations, collaboration networks, and the adoption of ORCID across disciplines and locations….”

A Warm Welcome for ORCID’s New Executive Director, Chris Shillum | ORCID

“JP: How do you see open scholarly infrastructure developing in the next few years?

CS: There are a number of fairly well-established open scholarly infrastructure organizations such as Crossref, ORCID, and DataCite, and we definitely need to look at how we can work more effectively together to deliver what I might call joined-up capabilities and joined-up experiences to our mutual users and members. So I think that’s one thing I’d like to see developed. But there are also lots of gaps.

We know that there’s huge interest in enabling scholars to represent their work in ways that are challenging because there still aren’t identifiers for every kind of research output, and there aren’t good taxonomies of every kind of contribution that research has made. I don’t necessarily think it’s ORCID’s role to take all of that on, but we can work with our fellow scholarly infrastructure initiatives to lay the path for other groups to come along and benefit from our collective experience. …

So I was involved in a set of very early discussions which led to the RA21 recommendations, and then in turn to SeamlessAccess, which is all about applying modern authentication technology to ease the problems researchers face with access to resources that their institutions have provided for them. This has a close tie-in with ORCID and CrossRef because it’s ultimately about getting some of these barriers out of the way so researchers can focus on doing the research without having to struggle with systems that aren’t joined up properly. Most recently, I’ve been working on an initiative called GetFTR which is about improving the user journey between all manner of tools and content discovery systems and authoritative published content. 

I guess some people might say that these problems will diminish with the move to Open Access, but if you look at SeamlessAccess, it’s about improving access to many kinds of resources that researchers need and their institutions have to vouch that they should have access to, like shared research infrastructure and research collaboration tools. We know from researchers themselves that they really appreciate a lot less hassle dealing with usernames and passwords and access control, for all kinds of resources. So that’s really what SeamlessAccess is all about. It’s not done yet, but we’ve made some good progress in starting to solve that problem and make it easier….

But I think the most difficult and most satisfying milestone which kind of coincided with when I left the Board was when ORCID finally got to sustainability and financial break-even. The most challenging thing over the past decade has been finding a model that enabled us to provide a vast majority of ORCID services freely and openly, yet with enough support to sustain the organization. It’s so easy to underestimate just how difficult that is in the world of open infrastructure, and it was a great achievement for everyone—for the team, for founding Executive Director Laure Haak, and the Board to eventually get to that point after almost 10 years….”

There’s A PID For That! Next Steps in Establishing a National PID Strategy – Jisc scholarly communications

“A stakeholder group was therefore formed earlier this year, with representatives from all disciplines and sectors — funders, HEIs, infrastructure providers, libraries, publishers, researchers, research managers, and more. At an initial meeting of this group in April, participants discussed the five persistent identifiers (PIDs) that have been deemed high priority for improving access to UK research. These are ORCID iDs for people, Crossref and DataCite DOIs for outputs, Crossref grant DOIs, ROR identifiers for organisations, and RAiDs for projects.  This was followed by five focus group meetings during May and June, each focused on one of the priority PIDs….”

Use of author identifier services (ORCID, ResearcherID) and academic social networks (Academia.edu, ResearchGate) by the researchers of the University of Caen Normandy (France): A case study

Abstract:  The purpose of this paper was to assess the presence of researchers on two author identifier services (ORCID and ResearcherID) and to compare the results with two academic social networks (Academia.edu and ResearchGate) using the categories of discipline, career advancement, and gender in a medium sized multidisciplinary university in France (University of Caen Normandy). Metrics such as number of publications per researcher, h-indexes, and average number of citations were also assessed. Of the 1,047 researchers studied, 673 (64.3%) had at least one profile on the four sites, and the number of researchers having multiple profiles decreased as more sites were studied. Researchers with only one profile numbered 385 (36.8%), while 204 (19.5%) had two, 68 (6.5%) had three, and only 16 (1.5%) had four. ResearchGate had by far the highest number of researchers present, with 569 (54.3%), whereas presence on the other sites was about 15%. We found that, apart from Academia.edu, researchers in Sciences, Technology, and Medicine (STM) were over-represented. Overall, experienced male researchers were over-represented on the sites studied. Our results show that, because of the numerous profiles lacking publication references (particularly on ORCID) and a low presence of researchers on the four sites studied (except for ResearchGate), assessing the number of publications, h-indexes, or average number of citations per article of individuals or institutions remains challenging. Finally, our data showed that French researchers have not adopted the use of the two author identifier sites (i.e. ORCID and ResearcherID). As long as French researchers remain reticent, these sites will not be able to provide the services for which they were created: addressing the problem of author misidentification, consequently providing exhaustive access to scientific production and bibliometric indicators of individual researchers and their institutions.

 

Use of author identifier services (ORCID, ResearcherID) and academic social networks (Academia.edu, ResearchGate) by the researchers of the University of Caen Normandy (France): A case study

Abstract:  The purpose of this paper was to assess the presence of researchers on two author identifier services (ORCID and ResearcherID) and to compare the results with two academic social networks (Academia.edu and ResearchGate) using the categories of discipline, career advancement, and gender in a medium sized multidisciplinary university in France (University of Caen Normandy). Metrics such as number of publications per researcher, h-indexes, and average number of citations were also assessed. Of the 1,047 researchers studied, 673 (64.3%) had at least one profile on the four sites, and the number of researchers having multiple profiles decreased as more sites were studied. Researchers with only one profile numbered 385 (36.8%), while 204 (19.5%) had two, 68 (6.5%) had three, and only 16 (1.5%) had four. ResearchGate had by far the highest number of researchers present, with 569 (54.3%), whereas presence on the other sites was about 15%. We found that, apart from Academia.edu, researchers in Sciences, Technology, and Medicine (STM) were over-represented. Overall, experienced male researchers were over-represented on the sites studied. Our results show that, because of the numerous profiles lacking publication references (particularly on ORCID) and a low presence of researchers on the four sites studied (except for ResearchGate), assessing the number of publications, h-indexes, or average number of citations per article of individuals or institutions remains challenging. Finally, our data showed that French researchers have not adopted the use of the two author identifier sites (i.e. ORCID and ResearcherID). As long as French researchers remain reticent, these sites will not be able to provide the services for which they were created: addressing the problem of author misidentification, consequently providing exhaustive access to scientific production and bibliometric indicators of individual researchers and their institutions.

 

Celebrating the Five Year Anniversary of the UK ORCID Consortium – Jisc scholarly communications

“August 2020 sees the 5-year anniversary of the UK ORCID consortium. The evolution of ORCID and the UK Consortium can be viewed as a change programme. If we look back and reflect, what have been the drivers for change and what improvements can we celebrate?…

The range and complexity of outputs that ORCID identifiers are associated with has expanded as well, as new systems and ways of capturing information emerge – especially as we move to a data rich, information-centric open science model of scholarship. As such, the power of interconnected PIDs with the personal identifier of ORCID ID embedded, gives deeply intertwined and more useful information. These potential benefits can be realised as the various systems and identifiers mature and adoption improves. Examples of associations with unique persistent person identities are: works (e.g. works identified with a DOI); organisations (identified, for example with a ROR id); affiliations and workflows which can be examined via the events captured in PID Graphs. A project identifier such as RAiD allows you to associate people, data, works and funding with a long term effort, track the impact of efforts over the long term, and focus on the narrative, rather than a particular researcher or funding stream. This evolving landscape of interconnection allows us to build better, more effective scholarly machines, to do open research on a better, more cohesive and collaborative scale….”

ARTiFACTS and ORCID: A Trusted Partnership Expanding Scientific and Academic Research Output | ORCID

“As a blockchain platform for scientific and academic research, ARTiFACTS allows researchers to create a permanent, real-time record of all research outputs and to receive formal citations. ARTiFACTS enables researchers to create an immutable record of their outputs so they can be securely shared, thus expanding access to vital information and accelerating discovery….

ARTiFACTS became an ORCID member in 2019, and chose to develop an integration with every API ORCID offers to best support their researchers. It took approximately three months to complete the integrations, including the initial API research, workflow design, development, testing, and review of the finished product with ORCID….”

ARTiFACTS and ORCID: A Trusted Partnership Expanding Scientific and Academic Research Output | ORCID

“As a blockchain platform for scientific and academic research, ARTiFACTS allows researchers to create a permanent, real-time record of all research outputs and to receive formal citations. ARTiFACTS enables researchers to create an immutable record of their outputs so they can be securely shared, thus expanding access to vital information and accelerating discovery….

ARTiFACTS became an ORCID member in 2019, and chose to develop an integration with every API ORCID offers to best support their researchers. It took approximately three months to complete the integrations, including the initial API research, workflow design, development, testing, and review of the finished product with ORCID….”

Persistent identifiers and Open Access in the UK: The way forward

“By providing information on the use of persistent identifiers (PIDs) in the research ecosystem, you agree that you have asked us to process it as described in our standard privacy notice at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice. You may instruct us to stop processing it at any time by emailing help@jisc.ac.uk. Until then, we’ll use it to inform work being carried out by Jisc to support the UK’s compliance with Plan S. …”

SciENcv and ORCID to Streamline NIH and NSF Grant Applications – LYRASIS NOW

“SciENcv is a tool managed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that allows researchers to create a biographical sketch (biosketch) to submit with their grant proposals for funding from NIH, and it can now also be used when seeking funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF).

As of October 5, 2020 the National Science Foundation (NSF) will require researchers to submit a biosketch that meets specific format requirements as part of their grant proposal. Researchers are encouraged to use SciENcv to create biosketches, as SciENcv offers a NSF-approved tool that is integrated with ORCID. Researchers can connect their ORCID iD with their SciENcv profile in order to transfer data from their ORCID record into SciENcv by clicking a button, rather than having to manually retype all of their information….”

Quarterly OA Digest – June 2020 – Jisc scholarly communications

“As we move towards what we hope will be a loosening of lockdown and a reduction in the risk from the coronavirus itself, we are starting to see the wider damage that has been done to our HE sector and our economy as a whole. We do not know what the new normal will be, or when that stability will arise. Institutions have different ideas as to how they might work over the next year, but prominent amongst all of them is an increased reliance on remote access, remote presence, and serious and sustained cost saving. There will be increased pressure on libraries to show enhanced support at reduced cost. Open access is at the heart of all of these issues. We will continue to work hard to give our members the best value we can in our services to save them time and money in dealing with open access issues. As reported here, Jisc is returning to renegotiate national publisher contracts in line with the changed environment. We have completed the first round of supplier evaluations for the repository dynamic purchasing system to try and identify the best value for members. We are working across services to help members in policy compliance and improve system efficiency and workflows. As ever, contact us if we can assist you through our services, advice, relationships or information and we will do our best to help….”

Welcome to the COrDa wiki!

“The Community ORCID Dashboard (CoRDa) is a project to answer the question “Who in my institution does and does not have an ORCID iD”?

Bringing together a wide range of open and institutional data sources, it will composite them through an abstract layer into an accessible reporting and visualisation portal – the dashboard….”

Our response to the UKRI OA Review – F1000 Blogs

“To add precision to the requirements of the UKRI’s OA policy, it would be helpful for the UKRI to make clear that all types of research-based articles that are submitted for peer review at publication outlets that meet the UKRI’s qualifying standards/criteria (and for which some sort of payment is required to secure OA – predominantly though an ‘Article Processing Charge’ (APC)) are covered by the policy….

The UKRI also needs to be clear about when it will ‘pay’ to enable OA.  For example:

would the policy apply if ‘at least one author’ has UKRI HE funding? 
if there are multi-funded authors listed on an article, and one or more of the authors have access to funds to support OA, what is the role of each funder? (i.e. do they split the costs? Is there a lead? Etc) …

UKRI should require an author or their institution to retain copyright AND specific reuse rights, including rights to deposit the author’s accepted manuscript in a repository in line with the deposit and licensing requirements of UKRI’s OA policy….

 

UKRI OA funds should not be permitted to support OA publication in hybrid journals…

 

While there are some benefits around transformative agreements – not least in terms of the simplicity of achieving OA for authors! – we do worry that such ‘big deals’ can effectively reduce author choice around publishing venue, effectively lock out OA-born and smaller publishers and have the potential to create and exacerbate inequalities in access to research across the globe; this does not therefore represent good value to the public (nor does it guarantee any kind of a sustainable model of publishing).

We would advise UKRI to consider how and where transformative deals can have unintended consequences in terms of lock-ins (and potential cost tie-ins) with specific publishers (often those operating at scale) while effectively making OA-born publishers work harder to engage and access researchers. …”

Our response to the UKRI OA Review – F1000 Blogs

“To add precision to the requirements of the UKRI’s OA policy, it would be helpful for the UKRI to make clear that all types of research-based articles that are submitted for peer review at publication outlets that meet the UKRI’s qualifying standards/criteria (and for which some sort of payment is required to secure OA – predominantly though an ‘Article Processing Charge’ (APC)) are covered by the policy….

The UKRI also needs to be clear about when it will ‘pay’ to enable OA.  For example:

would the policy apply if ‘at least one author’ has UKRI HE funding? 
if there are multi-funded authors listed on an article, and one or more of the authors have access to funds to support OA, what is the role of each funder? (i.e. do they split the costs? Is there a lead? Etc) …

UKRI should require an author or their institution to retain copyright AND specific reuse rights, including rights to deposit the author’s accepted manuscript in a repository in line with the deposit and licensing requirements of UKRI’s OA policy….

 

UKRI OA funds should not be permitted to support OA publication in hybrid journals…

 

While there are some benefits around transformative agreements – not least in terms of the simplicity of achieving OA for authors! – we do worry that such ‘big deals’ can effectively reduce author choice around publishing venue, effectively lock out OA-born and smaller publishers and have the potential to create and exacerbate inequalities in access to research across the globe; this does not therefore represent good value to the public (nor does it guarantee any kind of a sustainable model of publishing).

We would advise UKRI to consider how and where transformative deals can have unintended consequences in terms of lock-ins (and potential cost tie-ins) with specific publishers (often those operating at scale) while effectively making OA-born publishers work harder to engage and access researchers. …”