The real value of open data for the research community is not to access them, but to process them as conveniently as possible in order to reduce time-to-result and increase productivity. RAISE project will provide the infrastructure for a distributed crowdsourced data processing system, moving from open data to open access data for processing.
By 2001 there were four major persistent identifier (PID) types, so why was it necessary to create a fifth? The origin story of the fifth type, the Archival Resource Key (ARK), is adapted from this interview in 2021.
“Today DataCite is proud to announce the launch of DataCite Commons, available at https://commons.datacite.org. DataCite Commons is a discovery service that enables simple searches while giving users a comprehensive overview of connections between entities in the research landscape. This means that DataCite members registering DOIs with us will have easier access to information about the use of their DOIs and can discover and track connections between their DOIs and other entities. DataCite Commons was developed as part of the EC-funded project Freya and will form the basis of new DataCite services….
We integrate with both the ORCID and ROR (Research Organization Registry) APIs to enable a search for (10 million) people and (100,000) organizations and to show the associated content. For funding, we take advantage of the inclusion of Crossref Funder IDs in ROR metadata. We combine these connections, showing a funder, research organization, or researcher not only their content but also the citations and views and downloads if available, together with aggregate statistics such as numbers by year or content type….”
“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. …”
Abstract: Wikipedia’s contents are based on reliable and published sources. To this date, little is known about what sources Wikipedia relies on, in part because extracting citations and identifying cited sources is challenging. To close this gap, we release Wikipedia Citations, a comprehensive dataset of citations extracted from Wikipedia. A total of 29.3M citations were extracted from 6.1M English Wikipedia articles as of May 2020, and classified as being to books, journal articles or Web contents. We were thus able to extract 4.0M citations to scholarly publications with known identifiers — including DOI, PMC, PMID, and ISBN — and further labeled an extra 261K citations with DOIs from Crossref. As a result, we find that 6.7% of Wikipedia articles cite at least one journal article with an associated DOI. Scientific articles cited from Wikipedia correspond to 3.5% of all articles with a DOI currently indexed in the Web of Science. We release all our code to allow the community to extend upon our work and update the dataset in the future.
“We are pleased to announce the launch of the new persistent identifier (PID) services registry available at https://pidservices.org, a new service to find services built upon different PIDs from core technology providers and those who integrate from across a variety of disciplinary areas. This is a combined effort across multiple organizations as part of the EC-funded FREYA project grant (777523) with the aim of furthering discoverability of PIDs and the services that are built upon them….”
“This registry provides an overview of services related to Persistent Identifiers (PIDs). The PID Services Registry is maintained by DataCite and was developed within the FREYA project….”
“This report describes some of the ways that PIDs are already being implemented in the service of open research. It sets out the results of three years of extensive consultation and landscape analysis, exploring the state of the art in PID provision and adoption, requirements for new PID services, and the specific needs of the open research community. It describes the outcomes of a series of community discussions which resulted in a clear list of high priority PIDs for open research. It summarises the available evidence on current levels of PID adoption and usage in the UK, and highlights gaps between the ideal coverage of high priority PIDs and the current status quo. It analyses two workflows fundamental to the delivery of Plan S, namely Gold16 open access publishing, and Green17 open access repository deposit, and shows how the use of PIDs could be used to make them both more transparent and more efficient. We then explore the various identifier systems that are available now which could be considered candidates for each of the prioritised entities….”
“Considering the wide range of communities and interests that our four speakers represented, there was a remarkable and reassuring level of agreement between them about what’s important, what’s working, and what needs to change. As a PID person myself, I was delighted that persistent identifiers came up (ahem) persistently as key to a robust and open research infrastructure. While there is certainly more work needed to harness their full potential, PIDs like DOIs and ORCID iDs are already enabling interoperability between the many systems and services researchers and their organizations are using. There was also agreement among the speakers that more work is needed to increase community awareness, adoption, and use of PIDs, and of the research infrastructure in general. Fragmentation of the infrastructure is an issue here as it’s virtually impossible for anyone to keep up with the myriad of researcher tools and services out there. Bianca Kramer and Jeroen Bosman’s ongoing work to track these tools makes for a scary read, and the thought of finding a way to make all of them sustainable is even scarier! But at the same time, as Karin pointed out, we need to ensure that the tools we do choose to use and support meet the needs of researchers across all disciplines — and that doesn’t mean just retrofitting tools that were originally developed for scientists, it means developing tools that take the requirements of different disciplines into account from the start….”
“Recommendation #1: Clearly identify each record’s publication stage …
Recommendation #2: Link related records …
Recommendation #3: Label preprint versions and describe version changes …
Recommendation #4: Assign unique author identifiers and collect affiliation information …”
“Will ROR IDs be supported in the ORCID Registry?
Yes. Adding RORs to the ORCID Registry is on our roadmap. Open identifiers for organizations are a critical component of trusted assertions. While we work out the complex interdependencies involved in implementing ROR, we continue to actively encourage their adoption and use in a wide variety of communication channels.
Will ORCID move to using only ROR organization IDs?
ORCID is all-in with persistent identifiers. We support a diverse global community with a variety of use cases and requirements. We are keenly aware that reaching consensus on “the one” is difficult, if not distracting, as we all work toward digital transformation and open research goals. We expect messiness during this transitional period and strive to provide and support tools – technical and communications – to help manage it, such as FAIR, CARE, and Metadata 2020. We currently support four organization ID types (GRID, LEI, Crossref funder ID, and Ringgold) in affiliation, funding, research resource, and peer review items. Similarly, we support multiple ID types for other items in the ORCID registry (e.g., DOI, PMID, ISBN and over 40 other identifier types for works; Scopus, ResearcherID, ISNI and others for people). …”
“Will ROR IDs be supported in the ORCID Registry?
Yes. Adding RORs to the ORCID Registry is on our roadmap. Open identifiers for organizations are a critical component of trusted assertions. While we work out the complex interdependencies involved in implementing ROR, we continue to actively encourage their adoption and use in a wide variety of communication channels.
Will ORCID move to using only ROR organization IDs?
ORCID is all-in with persistent identifiers. We support a diverse global community with a variety of use cases and requirements. We are keenly aware that reaching consensus on “the one” is difficult, if not distracting, as we all work toward digital transformation and open research goals. We expect messiness during this transitional period and strive to provide and support tools – technical and communications – to help manage it, such as FAIR, CARE, and Metadata 2020. We currently support four organization ID types (GRID, LEI, Crossref funder ID, and Ringgold) in affiliation, funding, research resource, and peer review items. Similarly, we support multiple ID types for other items in the ORCID registry (e.g., DOI, PMID, ISBN and over 40 other identifier types for works; Scopus, ResearcherID, ISNI and others for people). …”
“Key points
New partnerships are needed to move away from paywalls and avoid article publishing charge?based publishing.
It remains difficult for small societies to negotiate with consortia, and partnerships with other societies may be a route forward.
Being open to different open access routes and using different pilots are key to learning which routes will be sustainable in the future.
While the starting position for most ‘read and publish’ offerings is based on historical spend, this will need to be re?evaluated in the longer term.
The lack of independent, universal reporting mechanisms and universally adopted persistent identifiers for institutions is a barrier to establishing agreements and one that needs a cost?effective solution….”
“Key points
New partnerships are needed to move away from paywalls and avoid article publishing charge?based publishing.
It remains difficult for small societies to negotiate with consortia, and partnerships with other societies may be a route forward.
Being open to different open access routes and using different pilots are key to learning which routes will be sustainable in the future.
While the starting position for most ‘read and publish’ offerings is based on historical spend, this will need to be re?evaluated in the longer term.
The lack of independent, universal reporting mechanisms and universally adopted persistent identifiers for institutions is a barrier to establishing agreements and one that needs a cost?effective solution….”
“As a former full-time PID person (until recently I was ORCID’s Director of Communications), I am convinced of the important role that persistent identifiers (PIDs) play in supporting a robust, trusted, and open research information infrastructure. We already have open PIDs for research people (ORCID iDs) and research outputs (DOIs), but what about research organizations? While organization identifiers do already exist (Ringgold identifiers, for example, have been widely adopted; Digital Science’s GRID is still relatively new), until recently there has been no truly open equivalent. But that’s changing, as you will learn in this interview with the team behind the newly launched Research Organization Registry—ROR….”