“There can be risk and trust related concerns within the current PID landscape. To explore this, the Knowledge Exchange commissioned consultants, scidecode science consulting, to undertake a study which examines the world of PIDs with an emphasis on its risks and trust-related issues. The resulting report will be accompanied by a series of case studies which aim to provide a greater understanding of the wider PID landscape. ‘The role of research funders in the consolidation of the PID landscape’ is the first case study in this series.
Research funders will likely play an important role in the gradual adoption of an ever wider range of PIDs across European countries. From raising awareness of the role of PIDs through to implementation of best practices, this case study examines what this key task involves.
The study explores topics such as the endorsement of PIDs by research funders and opportunities for cross-funder collaboration. Additionally it looks at the potential divergences in the technical workflows for PID adoption among others.
Research funders’ involvement is seen as critical for ensuring widespread adoption of the more technical PIDs, that are likely to see a bottom-up implementation with researchers in the lead. International coordination across national research funders is crucial as they are ideally placed to identify researchers’ best practices and to further promote them in specific disciplines. Understanding what funders believe to be the main issues around risks and trust will guide us in formulating further recommendations.
“This conversation with Eric Olson of the Center for Open Science is the first in a new series of interviews, “Case Studies in ROR Integration,” a series designed to provide in-depth detail on why and how people are choosing to integrate ROR IDs into their systems.”
Abstract: The complex realm of open science and scholarly communication consists of various increasingly interconnected parts. One of these building blocks is open access books. When taking a closer look at this particular building block, we see an intricate landscape of existing and emerging players, infrastructure, funding and policies. All these players and aspects play a role in a transition to open access for books as part of their larger open science policies.
By focusing on the current state of affairs for this particular building block, we can describe the different stakeholders – commercial or community led – plus the roles they play and what infrastructure, metadata and identifiers are in place or still need to be developed. Furthermore, this session will take into account funding and policy developments related to open access books and its relation to the building block and open science as a whole.
Based on this overview of the open access books landscape we invite the participants to discuss the implications for the larger goal of connecting the building blocks of Open Science. Enabling open science in this relatively small part of the scholarly communications realm comes with challenges for funders, publishers and libraries. Assuming that these challenges also exist for other open science building blocks, what can be learned from our experiences?
“Metadata is at the heart of DOIs and open scholarly infrastructure. At DataCite, our metadata schema defines what metadata properties can be included through DOI registration. The schema currently includes just six required properties—identifier (the DOI), creator, title, publication year, publisher, and resource type—along with 14 recommended and optional properties.
On the one hand, requiring only six metadata properties keeps the schema flexible and makes it easy to get started with DOI registration. At the same time, we want to encourage all DataCite Metadata Schema users to go beyond the mandatory properties and to share rich metadata that includes all available information about a given resource. This is especially important for metadata properties that are essential for discoverability—such as description and subject—and building connections between PIDs—including identifiers for related resources, people, and organizations. Keeping metadata up-to-date is also critical to ensure that the “persistent” part of persistent identifiers lives up to its full potential….”
“In August 2022, the United States Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued a memo (PDF) on ensuring free, immediate, and equitable access to federally funded research (a.k.a. the “Nelson memo”). Crossref is particularly interested in and relevant for the areas of this guidance that cover metadata and persistent identifiers—and the infrastructure and services that make them useful.
Funding bodies worldwide are increasingly involved in research infrastructure for dissemination and discovery. While this post does respond to the OSTP guidelines point-by-point, the information here applies to all funding bodies in all countries. It will be equally useful for publishers and other systems that operate in the scholarly research ecosystem.
In response to calls from our community for more specifics, this post:
Provides an overview of the specific ways that Crossref (along with organisations and initiatives like DataCite, ORCID, and ROR) helps U.S. federal agencies—and indeed any other funder—meet critical aspects of the recommendations.
Restates our intent to collaborate with all stakeholders in the scholarly research ecosystem, including the OSTP, the US federal agencies, our existing funder, publisher, and university members, to support the recommendation as plans develop.
References the work and adoption of Crossref Grant DOIs, including analyses of existing metadata matching funding to outputs.
Highlights that what’s outlined in the memo aligns with our longstanding mission to capture and maintain the scholarly record and our vision of the Research Nexus, as we describe in our current blog series, regarding our role in preserving the integrity of the scholarly record (ISR). …”
“There is an elephant in the scholarly infrastructure room and, while some are ready to talk about it generally, few want to describe that elephant in all its glorious detail. That elephant is the guidance organizations provide to the community about the use of persistent identifiers in our community. At present, the guidance is too vague and it needs to be specific, at least at a high level, in order for the national and international mandates to be most effective.
The August 2022 OSTP “Nelson” Memo laid out in general terms what it would take for content to be IDEALLY publicly available. This included when content should be released, and also its form and structure, suggesting that content should be made accessible in a structured form (i.e., XML or similar) along with associated “Digital Persistent Identifiers” (DPIs)—using the OSTP memo’s language, though these are more commonly referred to as persistent identifiers (PIDs)—and metadata. Because the memo is providing guidance for the numerous agencies impacted by the new policy so that they can craft their own plans, it didn’t provide explicit instruction on what those DPIs should be or the exact structure of basic metadata. It is anticipated that the affected agencies will then put forward their own specific plans, due to be submitted by February, for implementing these principles….”
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: …”
“Earlier in the year we wrote about the idea of an Open Knowledge Base (OKB) for the Netherlands. There’s been quite a lot of activity since then….
Once gathered as a data graph, new connections can be inferred from the collected statements from the different Dutch universities.
Two use cases have been proposed by the group to demonstrate the added value of a national approach
1. Disambiguation: link instances of the same author, institution, or publication with different names – and distinguish between instances of unique authors, institutions, or publications with similar names.
2. ‘Single version of the truth’: provides a holistic view of research-related metadata in a consistent and non-redundant form, eliminating discrepancies between institutional versions
Together, these two use cases provide a more reliable and complete foundation, upon which we can develop the PID graph….”
“The ConfIDent project focuses on the development of a service platform for scientific events. ConfIDent aims to help researchers find relevant conferences in their field and to share information about conferences. The project is led by TIB – German National Library of Science and Technology and the Department of Information Systems & Databases at RWTH Aachen University (Chair of Computer Science 5).
The goal of the ConfIDent project is “to make the descriptive metadata on conferences and other formats of scientific events permanently accessible in a high quality through automated processes and scientific data curation” (https://projects.tib.eu/en/confident/). Pilot communities for the project included computer science and transport and mobility research. ConfIDent is a sustainable service for researchers who search for and publish information on scientific events, as well as universities, information infrastructure institutions, specialized societies, publishers and funding agencies. The project is supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) through November 2022 . To date, over 12,700 events have been added to the ConfIDent platform.
The idea of registering DOIs for scientific events was initiated by a working group on PIDs for Conferences initiated by Crossref and DataCite, which published a first draft metadata schema for comment in 2018. ConfIDent has taken up this preliminary work and developed a metadata schema to describe scientific events in a sustainable way….”
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. …”
“A strategy coordinated across the UK academic research community to promote wider adoption of persistent identifiers by institutions, funders, and researchers, as well as improved reporting mechanisms to better assess the impact of research. …”
“Over the last decade or so, there has been a steady transition in scholarly publishing away from a traditional subscription based revenue model for publishers towards open access models where published articles are freely available to readers1 . During the early part of the transition, author-pays models, where a researcher finds money to pay article processing charges (APCs), were shown to be sustainable under certain conditions by publishers like BioMed Central and PLOS and grew in popularity among commercial publishers2 . In more recent years, concerns about rising APCs and lack of access to publication funds in many disciplines, coupled with funder mandates3 aimed at accelerating transitions to openness, have led to a number of new business models, from so-called ‘diamond’ open access4 where publication costs are covered by a third-party fund, to transformative agreements, such as ‘read and publish’ aimed at enabling journals to move from subscription to open access models with institutional support5 . Alongside all of these sits ‘green OA’, in which authors self-archive a version of their article in a suitable disciplinary or institutional repository while the published version appears in a subscription-based journal. This increasingly complex landscape poses a problem for universities as they find themselves administering a diverse range of open access agreements. At the same time, very little research has been done into how universities deal with open access. Anecdotally, approaches to OA funding are varied and sometimes ad hoc. In general, it appears that university libraries often distribute information to researchers and scholars about sources of open access funding, but no clear picture exists of how funds are allocated or monitored. With this in mind, in late 2021, we launched a community survey, supported by MoreBrains Cooperative6 , about the current state of the open access landscape7 . With 64 responses from 22 countries, although this is a relatively small sample, several themes emerge strongly, some of which we had already intuited, and some that were more surprising….
Half (32) of all respondents reported low levels of trust in the management of OA publishing and associated charges compared to 39% (25) who reported that they neither trusted nor distrusted the status quo and just 11% (7) who reported moderate or high levels of trust. There was strong support for open APC data (43), open standards for data exchange (41) and clear institutional ownership of data (42), with about 65% of all respondents claiming that each of those measures would increase trust. Seven of the eight free text responses also mentioned transparency and improved reporting as being desirable. Although no single measure emerged as a clear first priority, these ideas share a common theme of greater coordination and coherence across the many stakeholders involved in OA. In a similar vein, community governance structures for OA data were favoured by over half (34) of all respondents….”
“OAM [open access management] ensures smoother and more automated processes around APC-handling, agreement monitoring and full-text archiving. It guides authors and administrators along the complete publishing process, ensuring compliance with funding policies and steering them away from predatory publishers.
As the shift to OA is accelerating, we see an increasing number of public and private actors providing solutions in the OAM space. Some specialise in publishers, like the Copyright Clearance Center (RightsLink), others focus on institutions, such as Jisc (Monitor Open), or serve multiple stakeholders like us at ChronosHub….”
“This multi-year research project aspires to establish community-informed recommendations on how to assign persistent identifiers like Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) and Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) to research facilities and instrumentation. CU Boulder is also working with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Florida State University on the project to strengthen coordination among researchers in order to advance FAIR data principles and open science practices.
The “Findable Accessible Interoperable Reusable (FAIR) Open Science Facilities and Instruments project is one of 10 projects funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) as part of its Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable, Open Science Research Coordination Networks (FAIROS RCN) program. FAIR is a set of international principles that focus on making scientific research more open and transparent.
Johnson said these projects are part of a nationwide attempt to establish norms and best practices to strengthen coordination among researchers to advance fair data principles and open science practices. …”