“When we first implemented this workflow we were only collecting ROR IDs for the corresponding author’s current address, which was a problem because that’s not necessarily a manuscript affiliation. Since then we’ve improved the process, and I show that in this short video. EJP has its own instance of the ROR database in their system. When the author is filling out their submission and starts typing the institution name the typeahead is looking up the ROR record in the EJP database. The author chooses the correct institution from the results list and is then presented with a green checkmark next to the institution name, an indication that it has been validated. We also have a new section asking the corresponding author for all of their affiliations. It’s the same process as just described for each affiliation. The video shows what happens if the author does not select from the typeahead menu, and they just hit Save, or if they choose a name that’s not in ROR – they get this message that basically says, “Look, if you leave it this way, you’re not going to be eligible for any free publishing.” Authors can add as many affiliations as needed, and all of those will be checked against our deals to see if the article is eligible. Our policy is that any corresponding author affiliation on the manuscript is eligible….”
Category Archives: oa.pids
The chasm between the scholarly record and grey literature | Research Information
“In January, nine organisations timed the release of new research with the specific aim of impacting the discussions of political and business leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Three of the nine, sharing findings about global risks, tax, and trust, attracted significant media attention. None of the reports are available via a publisher. They matter not just because of their impact but because they are but the tip of a growing mountain of valuable research that is being posted, not published. And, because it is posted, not published, it’s a growing mountain of vital research that’s missing from the scholarly record….”
Supporting Shared Infrastructure for Scholarly Communication – Ithaka S+R, March 1, 2023
“Developing, maintaining, and sustaining fit-for-purpose community infrastructure is a challenge in the higher education and research sectors, particularly when the technology and policy environments are in flux. Ithaka S+R has conducted a variety of projects and studies touching on these issues over several years. Today, I’m pleased to share that we are launching a new study focusing on shared infrastructure in support of scholarly communication, with support from STM Solutions. The Project For some time, shared infrastructure has been a key enabler for delivering the services that authors and readers need from scholarly communication. Services like reference linking, repositories, identifiers, single sign-on, and digital preservation have supported the digital transformation of scholarly publishing, enabling new and improved services and achieving real efficiencies for all stakeholder communities. Looking ahead, it is necessary to sustain and in some cases improve existing shared infrastructure, even as next generation shared infrastructure must be developed to support the research community…. As part of this project, we will be conducting interviews this spring with individuals from major stakeholder groups, including infrastructure providers, researchers, open science community members, publishers, and librarians, among others. This spring, we will publish a landscape overview of shared infrastructure for scholarly communication. Over the summer, we will issue a draft report of our findings to allow for broad input. We expect to publish the final report in the fall….
And, with respect to shared infrastructure, we have just launched a project with the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) and other partners to design and prototype a shared community infrastructure that will support collections and collecting, with our work focused on governance and sustainability issues for this collaboration….”
Core Router Update | The OA Switchboard I
“On the first working day of 2023, we shared our plans for the coming year. Building on the successes and lessons learned from 2022, we reconfirmed that our overarching focus will continue to be on: authoritative data from source; interoperability of existing systems; and, connecting the dots of existing PIDs.
?
With this in mind, our first development iteration of 2023 involves a core router update, which is built on feedback from our participants.
Research institutions asked us to further develop the existing ‘auto-cc’ feature, that delivers alerts and metadata on publications from non-corresponding authors via a P1-PIO message (Public Information Only). What is now added, with today’s release, is the feature to also deliver these alerts and metadata in case of non-primary affiliations. This means that if an author has more than one affiliation in the version of record, and the institution is not the first affiliation listed, they now also receive a copy of the P1-PIO message….”
How open access diamond journals comply with industry standards exemplified by Plan S technical requirements
Abstract: Purpose: This study investigated how well current open access (OA) diamond journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and a survey conform to Plan S requirements, including licenses, peer review, author copyright, unique article identifiers, digital archiving, and machine-readable licenses.
Method: Data obtained from DOAJ journals and surveyed journals from mid-June to mid-July 2020 were analyzed for a variety of Plan S requirements. The results were presented using descriptive statistics.
Results: Out of 1,465 journals that answered, 1,137 (77.0%) reported compliance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) principles. The peer review types used by OA diamond journals were double-blind (6,339), blind (2,070), peer review (not otherwise specified, 1,879), open peer review (42), and editorial review (118) out of 10,449 DOAJ journals. An author copyright retention policy was adopted by 5,090 out of 10,448 OA diamond journals (48.7%) in DOAJ. Of the unique article identifiers, 5,702 (54.6%) were digital object identifiers, 58 (0.6%) were handles, and 14 (0.1%) were uniform resource names, while 4,675 (44.7%) used none. Out of 1,619 surveyed journals, the archiving solutions were national libraries (n=170, 10.5%), Portico (n=67, 4.1%), PubMed Central (n=15, 0.9%), PKP PN (n=91, 5.6%), LOCKSS (n=136, 8.4%), CLOCKSS (n=87, 5.4%), the National Computing Center for Higher Education (n=6, 0.3%), others (n=69, 4.3%), no policy (n=855, 52.8%), and no reply (n=123, 7.6%). Article-level metadata deposition was done by 8,145 out of 10,449 OA diamond journals (78.0%) in DOAJ.
Conclusion: OA diamond journals’ compliance with industry standards exemplified by the Plan S technical requirements was insufficient, except for the peer review type.
Don’t take it from us: Funder metadata matters – Crossref
“Though collectively, this research paints a fairly dim picture of the current availability, completeness and accuracy of existing funding information in publication metadata, all is not lost. This is a good opportunity to point out the value and availability of grant records since unique, persistent identifiers for grants (yes, DOIs for grants) paired with more and better funding metadata from publishers go a very long way to realizing the vision of the Research Nexus. And it certainly would make things a whole lot easier for the researchers who use this open metadata to analyze the scholarly record for the rest of us.”
PLOS Adopts CCC Ringgold Identify Database as its PID Solution – The Official PLOS Blog
“CCC, a leader in advancing copyright, accelerating knowledge, and powering innovation, today announced The Public Library of Science (PLOS) has adopted the industry-leading Ringgold Identify Database as its Persistent Identifier (PID) solution to streamline organizational data, helping power its Open Access (OA) publishing process with reliability and inclusivity.
A critical aspect leading to the decision was the precision with which PLOS could match accepted papers to institutional funding under its Community Action Publishing (CAP) program….
With over 600,000 Ringgold PIDs and metadata records, Ringgold Identify Database provides a curated view of organization data to help stakeholders improve data quality, drive strategic decision-making, and support data interoperability across the scholarly communications ecosystem. Used by intermediaries, funders, and a growing list of leading publishers, Ringgold Identify Database is the only solution to offer structured organizational hierarchies and consortia connections to help stakeholders quickly understand complex relationships. The database also includes rich metadata and additional identifiers, including the ISNI ID, an ISO Standard open ID to support wider interoperability….”
PLOS Adopts CCC Ringgold Identify Database as its PID Solution – The Official PLOS Blog
“CCC, a leader in advancing copyright, accelerating knowledge, and powering innovation, today announced The Public Library of Science (PLOS) has adopted the industry-leading Ringgold Identify Database as its Persistent Identifier (PID) solution to streamline organizational data, helping power its Open Access (OA) publishing process with reliability and inclusivity.
A critical aspect leading to the decision was the precision with which PLOS could match accepted papers to institutional funding under its Community Action Publishing (CAP) program….
With over 600,000 Ringgold PIDs and metadata records, Ringgold Identify Database provides a curated view of organization data to help stakeholders improve data quality, drive strategic decision-making, and support data interoperability across the scholarly communications ecosystem. Used by intermediaries, funders, and a growing list of leading publishers, Ringgold Identify Database is the only solution to offer structured organizational hierarchies and consortia connections to help stakeholders quickly understand complex relationships. The database also includes rich metadata and additional identifiers, including the ISNI ID, an ISO Standard open ID to support wider interoperability….”
ROR Turns Four: Highlights from the 2023 Annual Community Meeting
“Four years ago, ROR was first introduced to the world at an open community meeting the day before PIDapalooza.
Since then, we have continued to celebrate ROR’s anniversary every year with a big public event to bring together the broad network of ROR users and supporters and reinforce ROR’s commitment to developing open, sustainable, community-driven infrastructure. (In previous blog posts, we’ve shared recaps of the 2020, 2021, and 2022 meetings.)
For the 2023 annual meeting, we celebrated four years of ROR with four exciting virtual sessions attended by hundreds of participants from around the world….”
Community Call: IRUS and ORCID – YouTube
“ORCID US Community Call: IRUS and ORCID (February 01, 2023).”
SSRN Uses DOI for Preprint Articles – SSRN
“SSRN is currently experimenting with assigning Preprint DOIs to selected papers on SSRN.
DOIs are Digital Object Identifiers assigned to each new published paper that appears in any journal. DOIs are permanent IDs that always lead to the same result, making it easy to find, link and cite published articles. DOIs are managed by Crossref, a not-for-profit membership organisation….”
News – PIDs – risks and trust-related issues explored with new Knowledge Exchange report and case studies – News – Knowledge Exchange
“Persistent Identifiers (PIDs) are of vital importance to modern day digital information-based research. They ensure that all elements of research are uniquely identifiable and discoverable. They support the integrity of scientific information and its reproducibility. Most importantly they make possible automated computer processing of a staggering and ever-growing amount of diverse digital objects, hosted by multitudes of actors across the planet. Hence, the pursuit of a well-functioning PID infrastructure for research is of paramount strategic importance.
However, there can be significant risks of failure if the PID implementation process is not properly managed on an international scale.
As part of the work around Risks and Trust in pursuit of a well-functioning PID infrastructure for research, this Knowledge Exchange report examines the complex PID landscape within its six partner countries and beyond. The benefits of an efficient PID infrastructure and how this is a precondition for research communities impending research agendas, are explained. The report provides an in-depth look at what can go wrong with an unreliable PID service….”
Announcing ROR institutional identifier support for all Scholastica products
“Including persistent identifiers (a.k.a. PIDs) in article-level metadata is one of the best ways to improve journal archiving and discovery while promoting interoperability across scholarly communication systems. That’s why Scholastica is so focused on supporting the latest industry-standard PIDs — and this month, we have an exciting announcement! We’ve integrated our peer review system, production service, and OA publishing platform with ROR institutional identifiers.
Scholastica now automatically applies ROR IDs to institutions when authors input them into our peer review submission form and when editors add them to any articles they send to Scholastica’s production service or publish via our OA hosting platform….”
Case Study: ROR in FAIRsharing
“In this installment of the ROR Case Studies series, we talk with Allyson Lister, Content and Community Lead for FAIRsharing, a cross-disciplinary registry of scientific standards, databases, and policies, about how and why FAIRsharing used ROR to help make organizations first-class citizens in their data model….”
Why PID Strategies Are Having A Moment – And Why You Should Care – The Scholarly Kitchen
“Last year’s White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Nelson Memo is just one recent example of a national funding organization that is paying attention to PIDs. It directs US agencies to instruct their funded researchers “to obtain a digital persistent identifier … include it in published research outputs when available, and provide federal agencies with the metadata associated with all published research outputs they produce”. Other examples include UK Research and Innovation’s (UKRI) recently updated open access policy, which states that “Persistent Identifiers (PIDs) for articles must be implemented according to international recognised standards”; and Plan S’s requirement for the “Use of persistent identifiers (PIDs) for scholarly publications (with versioning, for example, in case of revisions), such as DOI”, which has been adopted by multiple countries.
It’s not just the national funders who are getting in on the act; there’s also been a surge in interest at the national government level. A number of countries in the Americas, Asia Pacific, and Europe are at various stages of developing and implementing national PID strategies. They include Australia, Brazil, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, Peru, South Korea, and the UK, all of which are participating in a Research Data Alliance (RDA) National PID Strategies Working Group, set up following a Birds of a Feather session at the RDA Virtual Plenary 17 last year. There are a number of similarities between these countries’ approaches, as the RDA WG has found. Its aim is “to map common activities across national agencies/efforts and produce a guide on the specific PIDs adopted in the context of national or regional PID strategies [in order to] help others, irrespective of geographical region, follow a blueprint to define their national PID approach. The intention is that it can be adopted or adapted by other countries looking to develop their own PID strategies. By following the recommendations it will encourage standardisation internationally.” One element of this work is to identify the most commonly used PIDs across all countries, which I’m sure is music to the ears of my former NISO colleague Todd Carpenter, who pointed out in his recent post that, “It is past time that we all agree on a core set of identifiers and basic metadata elements and begin to encourage researchers to use them at scale when communicating their results.” Common PIDs (not all of which are open) that have already been identified in the RDA WG’s work include: ORCID or ISNI for researchers; ROR or ISNI for research organizations; Crossref DOIs for research articles; DataCite DOIs or Handles for research data; Crossref DOIs for grants; RAiD for projects; and DOIs, IGSN and RRID for samples and specimens….”