Who Is Competing to Own Researcher Identity? – The Scholarly Kitchen

“To date, ResearchGate appears to be winning the battle to build a sector-wide identity instance for researchers, regardless of university or publisher, with Academia.edu as its primary competition. Though many have predicted the demise of these academic social networks, their continued growth cannot be dismissed. 

ResearchGate reports having 15 million members worldwide. Some portion of these “members” are presumably inactive, or active only in limited ways. Even so, there is reason to believe that ResearchGate represents a substantial share of the global scientific community. While it is difficult to know exactly what its members are doing on the platform — anything from reading articles to engaging with collaborators to searching for jobs — the amount of traffic they generate is enormous. According to data from SimilarWeb, in a recent three month period, ResearchGate’s traffic was nearly equal to that of ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and Nature.com combined. Or, to provide another comparative, ResearchGate’s usage was almost equivalent to that of a basket of major Elsevier properties, including ScienceDirect and all its other major STM properties, including Mendeley, bepress, SSRN, and Pure. 

There is power to this scale. ResearchGate has been able to associate much of the scientific literature with its authors, enabling a variety of analytics that it is able to turn into services and in some cases to monetize. Even though ResearchGate is one of the largest sources of leakage and is therefore being sued by an array of the major publishing houses, the power of ResearchGate’s data has been sufficient to enable it to develop a partnership with  Springer Nature, at least on a pilot basis, in which Springer Nature content is freely distributed on ResearchGate. …”

Rescognito

“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….”

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….”

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?
 

Diversity

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…”

The institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis

Abstract:  Objective

This study uses survey research methods to gain a deeper understanding of the institutional repository (IR) landscape in medical schools and academic health centers.

Methods

Members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) were surveyed about their IRs. The authors used a mixed-methods approach of a survey and qualitative content analysis to identify common themes.

Results

Survey results indicate that a large majority of responding medical schools and academic health centers have or are implementing an IR (35 out of 50, 70%). Of these, 60% (21 institutions) participate in an institution-wide IR rather than administer their own repositories. Much of the archived content is grey literature that has not already been published, but the percentage of original content varies greatly among institutions. The majority (57.1%) of respondent institutions are not considering an open access policy or mandate. Most institutions (71.4%) reported that repository staff are depositing materials on behalf of users. DSpace and bepress Digital Commons are the most popular repository platforms in this community. The planned enhancements that were most frequently reported were implementing a discovery layer and ORCID integration. The majority of respondents (54.3%) do not plan to migrate to a different platform in the foreseeable future. Analysis of respondent comments identified the following themes: integration, redundancy, and reporting; alternatives and exploration; uniqueness; participation; and funding and operations.

Conclusions

The study results capture a view of the IR landscape in medical schools and academic health centers and help readers understand what services their peers have in place as well as their plans for future developments.

The institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis

Abstract:  Objective

This study uses survey research methods to gain a deeper understanding of the institutional repository (IR) landscape in medical schools and academic health centers.

Methods

Members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) were surveyed about their IRs. The authors used a mixed-methods approach of a survey and qualitative content analysis to identify common themes.

Results

Survey results indicate that a large majority of responding medical schools and academic health centers have or are implementing an IR (35 out of 50, 70%). Of these, 60% (21 institutions) participate in an institution-wide IR rather than administer their own repositories. Much of the archived content is grey literature that has not already been published, but the percentage of original content varies greatly among institutions. The majority (57.1%) of respondent institutions are not considering an open access policy or mandate. Most institutions (71.4%) reported that repository staff are depositing materials on behalf of users. DSpace and bepress Digital Commons are the most popular repository platforms in this community. The planned enhancements that were most frequently reported were implementing a discovery layer and ORCID integration. The majority of respondents (54.3%) do not plan to migrate to a different platform in the foreseeable future. Analysis of respondent comments identified the following themes: integration, redundancy, and reporting; alternatives and exploration; uniqueness; participation; and funding and operations.

Conclusions

The study results capture a view of the IR landscape in medical schools and academic health centers and help readers understand what services their peers have in place as well as their plans for future developments.

Open Access Week 2019 | Research Data Management Program

“International Open Access Week is an opportunity to take action in making openness the default for research—to raise the visibility of scholarship, accelerate research.

At Harvard, the Library is dedicated to fostering equitable systems of open research and scholarship that serve the needs of our diverse global community.

This year’s Open Access Week invites all interested stakeholders to participate in advancing this important work. Please join us for a variety of workshops on open platforms to help you make your research, data, and scholarship more accessible, collaborative, and reproducible. …”

Plaudit · Open endorsements from the academic community

“Plaudit links researchers, identified by their ORCID, to research they endorse, identified by its DOI….

Because endorsements are publisher-independent and provided by known and trusted members of the academic community, they provide credibility for valuable research….

Plaudit is built on open infrastructure. We use permanent identifiers from ORCID and DOI, and endorsements are fed into CrossRef Event Data.

We’re open source, community-driven, and not for profit….”

Using ORCID to Re-imagine Research Attribution | ORCID

“The objective of Rescognito is not to “disrupt” or to “dis-intermediate”, but to work with existing scholarly societies and other participants, keeping them at the heart of research evaluation and reputation management. Rescognito does not store content, it is not a social network nor workflow system; it is just a thin layer exclusively focused on recognition of a wide variety of research contributions. 

Using our platform, recognition is attributed using a counter called a “COG” (short for ReCOGnition) and the ORCID iD of the person granting the recognition. By themselves COG totals are a relatively superficial metric; but because they are open, transparent and attributable, we anticipate that layers of analytics, visualization and possibly AI will provide valuable insights into research trends and people.

We use the CRediT taxonomy, supplemented with a continuously-evolving list of home-grown recognition reasons (feedback welcome!) useful for recognizing non-article-based contributions and non-science works in the humanities and arts….

Thanks to ORCID our system can reliably identify research professionals (for example, the aforementioned Stephen Curry, along with his works: https://rescognito.com/0000-0002-0552-8870)….

Rescognito also allows self-recognition as a way to claim/assign CRediT for a previously published work (for example, https://rescognito.com/0000-0002-0673-1360)….”