Are You Ready to ROR? An Inside Look at this New Organization Identifier Registry – The Scholarly Kitchen

“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….”



“Our vision is an open environment where researchers and research professionals are recognized for a wide range of behaviors and contributions that benefit the Open Research ecosystem….

Our mission is to expand researcher recognition, to add transparency, increase effectiveness, and to improve research investment outcomes for individuals and institutions.


What we do: Rescognito provides a fair, open and granular platform for the recognition of a broad range research activity and good citizenship. Rescognito aims to allow researchers to openly acknowledge colleagues (and to be acknowledged by colleagues) for meaningful contributions to the research process….

The Rescognito Open Ledger draws on public information contained in researchers’ ORCID® records. ORCID iDs provide a definitive way to uniquely identify individual researchers. DOIs, grant IDs and other persistent identifiers (PIDs) are also used where available as links to appropriate contributions….”

Linked Research on the Decentralised Web

Abstract:  This thesis is about research communication in the context of the Web. I analyse literature which reveals how researchers are making use of Web technologies for knowledge dissemination, as well as how individuals are disempowered by the centralisation of certain systems, such as academic publishing platforms and social media. I share my findings on the feasibility of a decentralised and interoperable information space where researchers can control their identifiers whilst fulfilling the core functions of scientific communication: registration, awareness, certification, and archiving.

The contemporary research communication paradigm operates under a diverse set of sociotechnical constraints, which influence how units of research information and personal data are created and exchanged. Economic forces and non-interoperable system designs mean that researcher identifiers and research contributions are largely shaped and controlled by third-party entities; participation requires the use of proprietary systems.

From a technical standpoint, this thesis takes a deep look at semantic structure of research artifacts, and how they can be stored, linked and shared in a way that is controlled by individual researchers, or delegated to trusted parties. Further, I find that the ecosystem was lacking a technical Web standard able to fulfill the awareness function of research communication. Thus, I contribute a new communication protocol, Linked Data Notifications (published as a W3C Recommendation) which enables decentralised notifications on the Web, and provide implementations pertinent to the academic publishing use case. So far we have seen decentralised notifications applied in research dissemination or collaboration scenarios, as well as for archival activities and scientific experiments.

Another core contribution of this work is a Web standards-based implementation of a clientside tool, dokieli, for decentralised article publishing, annotations and social interactions. dokieli can be used to fulfill the scholarly functions of registration, awareness, certification, and archiving, all in a decentralised manner, returning control of research contributions and discourse to individual researchers.

The overarching conclusion of the thesis is that Web technologies can be used to create a fully functioning ecosystem for research communication. Using the framework of Web architecture, and loosely coupling the four functions, an accessible and inclusive ecosystem can be realised whereby users are able to use and switch between interoperable applications without interfering with existing data.

Technical solutions alone do not suffice of course, so this thesis also takes into account the need for a change in the traditional mode of thinking amongst scholars, and presents the Linked Research initiative as an ongoing effort toward researcher autonomy in a social system, and universal access to human- and machine-readable information?. Outcomes of this outreach work so far include an increase in the number of individuals self-hosting their research artifacts, workshops publishing accessible proceedings on the Web, in-the-wild experiments with open and public peer-review, and semantic graphs of contributions to conference proceedings and journals (the Linked Open Research Cloud).

Some of the future challenges include: addressing the social implications of decentralised Web publishing, as well as the design of ethically grounded interoperable mechanisms; cultivating privacy aware information spaces; personal or community-controlled on-demand archiving services; and further design of decentralised applications that are aware of the core functions of scientific communication.

Decisions adopted by the Executive Board at its 207th session – UNESCO Digital Library

From p. 15: “The Executive Board,

1. Having examined documents 207 EX/7 and 207 EX/PG/1.INF.3 and Corr.,

2. Takes note of the consolidated roadmap towards the adoption of a possible UNESCO recommendation on open science contained in the Annex to document 207 EX/7;

3. Notes the importance of ensuring an open and transparent process based on a proper geographical and gender balance for the selection of the members of the Advisory Committee;

4. Requests the Director-General to ensure a broad and geographically representative Open Science Partnership, with relevant stakeholders and institutions from all regions and from all branches of Basic and Applied Sciences, including Natural Sciences, Life Sciences, and Social and Human Sciences, particularly taking into account local and indigenous peoples and their traditional knowledge;

5. Recommends that the specific challenges of scientists in developing countries in regards to weak Science Technology and Innovation (STI) policy and legal systems, and the digital, technological and knowledge divides, be adequately addressed within the consolidated Roadmap and future recommendation to enable the scientists to fully participate and reap the benefits of the Open Science framework;

6. Also recommends that the General Conference, at its 40th session, invite the Director-General, to initiate, in accordance with the applicable rules and provided the resources are available, the process of elaborating a draft text of a new standard-setting instrument on open science, in the form of a recommendation, to be submitted for consideration by the General Conference at its 41st session;

7. Further recommends that the General Conference, at its 40th session, request the Director-General to hold at least one Category 2 intergovernmental meeting in presentia with a view to the elaboration of a recommendation on Open Science;

8. Recommends the Director-General to elaborate a draft Terms of Reference of The Open Science Advisory Committee to be presented at the next General Conference, for its consideration.”

New Landscapes on the Road of Open Science: 6 key issues to address for research data management in the Netherlands | Open Working

“The road to Open Science is not a short one. As the chairman of the Executive Board of the European Open Science Cloud, Karel Luyben, is keen to point out, it will take at least 10 or 15 years of travel until we reach a point where Open Science is simply absorbed into ordinary, everyday science.

Within the Netherlands, and for research data in particular, we have made many strides towards that final point. We have knowledge networks such as LCRDM, a suite of archives covered by the Research Data Netherlands umbrella, and the groundbreaking work done by the Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences.

But there is still much travel to be done; many new landscapes to be traversed. Data sharing is still far from being the norm (see here for a visualisation of these results).

The authors of this blog post have put together six areas that, in their opinion, deserve attention on our Open Science journey….”

Peer Review Transparency | The Substance of Scholarly Authority

“The unique authority of scholarly publishing arises from the rigorous evaluation and assessment works must go through before they are published—known as the peer review process. Peer Review Transparency is an initiative of scholarly publishers, academic librarians, technology innovators, and thought leaders in scholarly communication, with support from the Open Society Foundations, to create agreed definitions of how peer review is conducted, and to disclose clearly and efficiently to readers the kind of review a published work has undergone. …


The unique authority of scholarly works—whether journal articles or books, and whether in the sciences, humanities, the arts, or the humanistic social studies—derives from the painstaking prior review of works submitted for consideration by experts qualified to evaluate an author’s methods and arguments. But peer review has historically been a “black box” phenemenon—one publishers conduct, but don’t describe or disclose.

It’s time to change that.”


Case study: Doing more with ORCID – UK ORCID Support

“The University of Cambridge research repository (Apollo), uses ORCID IDs as a unique identifier for researchers.  When a researcher submits a dataset to Apollo, a DOI is minted for the dataset through the DataCite service.   By including the ORCID in the metadata submitted to DataCite, DataCite then populates the ORCID registry entry for the researcher (with their permission) with information about the dataset, using an ‘auto-update’ feature. 

The result is that a link is created between the researcher and their data, through the ORCID ID identifying the researcher, and the DOI for the data assigned by DataCite. The persistent identifiers are used to connect researchers and their achievements, improving visibility and discoverability across different systems.  The workflow reduces duplication of effort in entering information and avoids input or identification errors….”

Pride in Community: ROR Fundraising Update

“ROR [Research Organization Registry] launched a fundraising campaign in October to call on community stakeholders to pitch in toward supporting ROR’s long-term sustainability. …

ROR’s growing community of supporters speaks to the importance of building and sustaining open infrastructure for scholarly communications….”


Journal practices (other than OA) promoting Open Science goals | Zenodo

“Journal practices (other than OA) promoting Open Science goals (relevance, reproducibility, efficiency, transparency)

Early, full and reproducible content

preregistration – use preregistrations in the review process
registered reports – apply peer review to preregistration prior to the study and publish results regardless of outcomes
preprint policy – liberally allow preprinting in any archive without license restrictions
data/code availability – foster or require open availability of data and code for reviewers and readers
TDM allowance – allow unrestricted TDM of full text and metadata for any use
null/negative results – publish regardless of outcome

Machine readable ecosystem

data/code citation – promote citation and use standards
persistent IDs – e.g. DOI, ORCID, ROR, Open Funder Registry, grant IDs
licenses (in Crossref) – register (open) licenses in Crossref
contributorship roles – credit all contributors for their part in the work
open citations – make citation information openly available via Crossref

Peer review

open peer review – e.g. open reports and open identities
peer review criteria – evaluate methodological rigour and reporting quality only or also judge expected relevance or impact?
rejection rates – publish rejection rates and reconsider high selectivity
post-publication peer review – publish immediately after sanity check and let peer review follow that?


author diversity – age, position, gender, geography, ethnicity, colour
reviewer diversity – age, position, gender, geography, ethnicity, colour
editor diversity – age, position, gender, geography, ethnicity, colour

Metrics and DORA

DORA: journal metrics – refrain from promoting
DORA: article metrics – provide a range and use responsibly…”