ORCID reviewer recognition for UKRI reviewers – UKRI

“UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) has developed a new feature in its current funding systems to recognise formally the contributions of UKRI reviewers via ORCID, a unique identifier tool for individuals.

The implementation of ORCID reviewer recognition went live today (23 November 2020). It will enable UKRI review contributions to be publicly displayed without compromising the anonymity and confidentiality of the assessment process. This will be done by issuing a ‘review credit’ that will be displayed in individual reviewers ORCID profiles….”

10M ORCID iDs! | ORCID

“At the end of 2012, just three months after we launched the ORCID registry, we were thrilled to be able to share that nearly 50,000 researchers had already registered for an iD. Ten months after that, we celebrated the ORCID record growing to nearly 250,000 (with 80 Members!) All told, it took us just a little over two years to grow to 1,000,000 iDs, and nine months after that, in 2015, we hit 1.5 million iDs. 

Since 2015 we’ve been steadily growing and exceeding even our own high expectations:

In 2015, the record grew by 788,650 records,
In 2016, by 1,068,295,
In 2017, 1,388,796,
In 2018, it grew by 1,585,851,
In 2019, by 2,006,672, and
In 2020 (so far), it’s grown by 2,293,631! 

And just last week ORCID hit another major milestone: 10 million registered ORCID iDs! …”

DECLARATION TO IMPROVE BIOMEDICAL & HEALTH RESEARCH

“We are an international group of researchers and patients who believe that:

it is ethically untenable to remain complicit in the crises that undermine science,

there are simple measures which can improve the quality and openness, and

the public and patients have a right to full access of the research they fund….”

Celebrating Open Access Week: Institutional uses of the ORCID Public Data File | ORCID

“Last Friday, ORCID turned eight, and we are about to reach another important milestone: 10 million ORCID iDs! As we do every year, we are celebrating our anniversary and Open Access Week by releasing our Public Data File.

The 2020 Public Data File contains a snapshot of all public record data in the ORCID Registry, is published under a CC0 waiver, and is free for everyone to use. Openness is one of our foundational values, and as part of our commitment to remove barriers to access, we release the file to ensure that all stakeholders have broad access to a vital part of the scholarly communication infrastructure. At the time of writing, the 2019 Public Data File was downloaded more than 35,000 times. 

The file has been used in different projects as a data source for the analysis of relationships and individual trajectories within the research community, scientific migrations, collaboration networks, and the adoption of ORCID across disciplines and locations….”

A Warm Welcome for ORCID’s New Executive Director, Chris Shillum | ORCID

“JP: How do you see open scholarly infrastructure developing in the next few years?

CS: There are a number of fairly well-established open scholarly infrastructure organizations such as Crossref, ORCID, and DataCite, and we definitely need to look at how we can work more effectively together to deliver what I might call joined-up capabilities and joined-up experiences to our mutual users and members. So I think that’s one thing I’d like to see developed. But there are also lots of gaps.

We know that there’s huge interest in enabling scholars to represent their work in ways that are challenging because there still aren’t identifiers for every kind of research output, and there aren’t good taxonomies of every kind of contribution that research has made. I don’t necessarily think it’s ORCID’s role to take all of that on, but we can work with our fellow scholarly infrastructure initiatives to lay the path for other groups to come along and benefit from our collective experience. …

So I was involved in a set of very early discussions which led to the RA21 recommendations, and then in turn to SeamlessAccess, which is all about applying modern authentication technology to ease the problems researchers face with access to resources that their institutions have provided for them. This has a close tie-in with ORCID and CrossRef because it’s ultimately about getting some of these barriers out of the way so researchers can focus on doing the research without having to struggle with systems that aren’t joined up properly. Most recently, I’ve been working on an initiative called GetFTR which is about improving the user journey between all manner of tools and content discovery systems and authoritative published content. 

I guess some people might say that these problems will diminish with the move to Open Access, but if you look at SeamlessAccess, it’s about improving access to many kinds of resources that researchers need and their institutions have to vouch that they should have access to, like shared research infrastructure and research collaboration tools. We know from researchers themselves that they really appreciate a lot less hassle dealing with usernames and passwords and access control, for all kinds of resources. So that’s really what SeamlessAccess is all about. It’s not done yet, but we’ve made some good progress in starting to solve that problem and make it easier….

But I think the most difficult and most satisfying milestone which kind of coincided with when I left the Board was when ORCID finally got to sustainability and financial break-even. The most challenging thing over the past decade has been finding a model that enabled us to provide a vast majority of ORCID services freely and openly, yet with enough support to sustain the organization. It’s so easy to underestimate just how difficult that is in the world of open infrastructure, and it was a great achievement for everyone—for the team, for founding Executive Director Laure Haak, and the Board to eventually get to that point after almost 10 years….”

There’s A PID For That! Next Steps in Establishing a National PID Strategy – Jisc scholarly communications

“A stakeholder group was therefore formed earlier this year, with representatives from all disciplines and sectors — funders, HEIs, infrastructure providers, libraries, publishers, researchers, research managers, and more. At an initial meeting of this group in April, participants discussed the five persistent identifiers (PIDs) that have been deemed high priority for improving access to UK research. These are ORCID iDs for people, Crossref and DataCite DOIs for outputs, Crossref grant DOIs, ROR identifiers for organisations, and RAiDs for projects.  This was followed by five focus group meetings during May and June, each focused on one of the priority PIDs….”

Use of author identifier services (ORCID, ResearcherID) and academic social networks (Academia.edu, ResearchGate) by the researchers of the University of Caen Normandy (France): A case study

Abstract:  The purpose of this paper was to assess the presence of researchers on two author identifier services (ORCID and ResearcherID) and to compare the results with two academic social networks (Academia.edu and ResearchGate) using the categories of discipline, career advancement, and gender in a medium sized multidisciplinary university in France (University of Caen Normandy). Metrics such as number of publications per researcher, h-indexes, and average number of citations were also assessed. Of the 1,047 researchers studied, 673 (64.3%) had at least one profile on the four sites, and the number of researchers having multiple profiles decreased as more sites were studied. Researchers with only one profile numbered 385 (36.8%), while 204 (19.5%) had two, 68 (6.5%) had three, and only 16 (1.5%) had four. ResearchGate had by far the highest number of researchers present, with 569 (54.3%), whereas presence on the other sites was about 15%. We found that, apart from Academia.edu, researchers in Sciences, Technology, and Medicine (STM) were over-represented. Overall, experienced male researchers were over-represented on the sites studied. Our results show that, because of the numerous profiles lacking publication references (particularly on ORCID) and a low presence of researchers on the four sites studied (except for ResearchGate), assessing the number of publications, h-indexes, or average number of citations per article of individuals or institutions remains challenging. Finally, our data showed that French researchers have not adopted the use of the two author identifier sites (i.e. ORCID and ResearcherID). As long as French researchers remain reticent, these sites will not be able to provide the services for which they were created: addressing the problem of author misidentification, consequently providing exhaustive access to scientific production and bibliometric indicators of individual researchers and their institutions.

 

Use of author identifier services (ORCID, ResearcherID) and academic social networks (Academia.edu, ResearchGate) by the researchers of the University of Caen Normandy (France): A case study

Abstract:  The purpose of this paper was to assess the presence of researchers on two author identifier services (ORCID and ResearcherID) and to compare the results with two academic social networks (Academia.edu and ResearchGate) using the categories of discipline, career advancement, and gender in a medium sized multidisciplinary university in France (University of Caen Normandy). Metrics such as number of publications per researcher, h-indexes, and average number of citations were also assessed. Of the 1,047 researchers studied, 673 (64.3%) had at least one profile on the four sites, and the number of researchers having multiple profiles decreased as more sites were studied. Researchers with only one profile numbered 385 (36.8%), while 204 (19.5%) had two, 68 (6.5%) had three, and only 16 (1.5%) had four. ResearchGate had by far the highest number of researchers present, with 569 (54.3%), whereas presence on the other sites was about 15%. We found that, apart from Academia.edu, researchers in Sciences, Technology, and Medicine (STM) were over-represented. Overall, experienced male researchers were over-represented on the sites studied. Our results show that, because of the numerous profiles lacking publication references (particularly on ORCID) and a low presence of researchers on the four sites studied (except for ResearchGate), assessing the number of publications, h-indexes, or average number of citations per article of individuals or institutions remains challenging. Finally, our data showed that French researchers have not adopted the use of the two author identifier sites (i.e. ORCID and ResearcherID). As long as French researchers remain reticent, these sites will not be able to provide the services for which they were created: addressing the problem of author misidentification, consequently providing exhaustive access to scientific production and bibliometric indicators of individual researchers and their institutions.

 

Celebrating the Five Year Anniversary of the UK ORCID Consortium – Jisc scholarly communications

“August 2020 sees the 5-year anniversary of the UK ORCID consortium. The evolution of ORCID and the UK Consortium can be viewed as a change programme. If we look back and reflect, what have been the drivers for change and what improvements can we celebrate?…

The range and complexity of outputs that ORCID identifiers are associated with has expanded as well, as new systems and ways of capturing information emerge – especially as we move to a data rich, information-centric open science model of scholarship. As such, the power of interconnected PIDs with the personal identifier of ORCID ID embedded, gives deeply intertwined and more useful information. These potential benefits can be realised as the various systems and identifiers mature and adoption improves. Examples of associations with unique persistent person identities are: works (e.g. works identified with a DOI); organisations (identified, for example with a ROR id); affiliations and workflows which can be examined via the events captured in PID Graphs. A project identifier such as RAiD allows you to associate people, data, works and funding with a long term effort, track the impact of efforts over the long term, and focus on the narrative, rather than a particular researcher or funding stream. This evolving landscape of interconnection allows us to build better, more effective scholarly machines, to do open research on a better, more cohesive and collaborative scale….”

ARTiFACTS and ORCID: A Trusted Partnership Expanding Scientific and Academic Research Output | ORCID

“As a blockchain platform for scientific and academic research, ARTiFACTS allows researchers to create a permanent, real-time record of all research outputs and to receive formal citations. ARTiFACTS enables researchers to create an immutable record of their outputs so they can be securely shared, thus expanding access to vital information and accelerating discovery….

ARTiFACTS became an ORCID member in 2019, and chose to develop an integration with every API ORCID offers to best support their researchers. It took approximately three months to complete the integrations, including the initial API research, workflow design, development, testing, and review of the finished product with ORCID….”