Étiquette : ORCID

Catégories
EN

Understanding ORCID adoption among academic researchers

Author : Stephen R. Porter

Just over a decade ago, the ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier) was created to provide a unique digital identifier for researchers around the world. The ORCID has proven essential in identifying individual researchers and their publications, both for bibliometric research analyses and for universities and other organizations tracking the research productivity and impact of their personnel.

Yet widespread adoption of the ORCID by individual researchers has proved elusive, with previous studies finding adoption rates ranging from 3% to 42%. Using a national survey of U.S. academic researchers at 31 research universities, we investigate why some researchers adopt an ORCID and some do not. We found an overall adoption rate of 72%, with adoptions rates ranging between academic disciplines from a low of 17% in the visual and performing arts to a high of 93% in biological and biomedical sciences.

Many academic journals require an ORCID to submit a manuscript, and this is the main reason why researchers adopt an ORCID. The top three reasons for not having an ORCID are not seeing the benefits, being far enough in the academic career to not need it, and working in an academic discipline where it is not needed.

URL : Understanding ORCID adoption among academic researchers

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05300-7

Catégories
EN

Adoption and use of author identifier services: A French national survey

Authors : Christophe Boudry, Aline Bouchard

This paper studies awareness and use of author identifier services (AIDs) in the French academic community and explores needs and forms of support required for these tools, using a national questionnaire survey. ArXivID, IdHAL, ORCID, ResearcherID and Scopus Author ID were investigated. A total of 6125 people completed the questionnaire in full. The results of this survey show that discipline and age play an important role in French researchers’ familiarity with AIDs.

IdHAL and ORCID were by far the two best known AIDs, probably because they have been promoted by institutions in France for several years. French researchers use AIDs mainly to respond to external requests (e.g., to submit an article or a research project), while, surprisingly, few use them to ‘facilitate their work’.

When French researchers were asked about their needs and the form of support required for AIDs, more than 30% of them said they either required an introduction to or practical training in these tools. The results of this national survey should help stakeholders to adapt their policies and to guide and support researchers more efficiently in the use of these tools.

URL : Adoption and use of author identifier services: A French national survey

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1640

Catégories
FR

Utilisation et usages des identifiants numériques chercheurs en France. Synthèse de l’enquête nationale 2023

Auteur.ices/Authors : Aline Bouchard, Christophe Boudry

L’enquête présentée dans ce rapport s’insère dans un projet de recherche composé de quatre phases qualitatives et quantitatives, dont les résultats seront publiés au fur et à mesure de l’avancement du projet. Le présent rapport en constitue la première partie et présente les résultats d’un questionnaire national, conduit entre novembre 2022 et février 2023.

Son objectif principal était de faire un état des lieux des usages des identifiants numériques chercheurs (INC), et plus particulièrement d’ORCID, dans la communauté de recherche française, en étudiant leur contexte, leur connaissance et leurs pratiques associées, les moteurs et freins à leur adoption, et les besoins de formation à ces outils. 6 125 personnes ont complété intégralement ce questionnaire national, ce qui correspond à environ 3,2 % de la population nationale des chercheurs.

La première partie de ce rapport questionne les répondants sur leur familiarité et leurs connaissances des réseaux sociaux académiques (RSA), outils de visibilité et identifiants numériques chercheurs. Cette partie met en évidence le rôle essentiel de la discipline dans l’appropriation de ces différents outils, de grandes catégories d’usages et différents degrés d’acculturation à ces outils.

La deuxième partie de ce rapport concerne spécifiquement l’INC ORCID, et montre globalement une connaissance et une utilisation avant tout concrète et pragmatique de cet identifiant par les chercheurs. Concernant les besoins en formation ou initiation à ces outils, selon les chercheurs interrogés, ils s’avèrent être encore importants, que ce soit en présentiel ou en distanciel.

URL : Utilisation et usages des identifiants numériques chercheurs en France. Synthèse de l’enquête nationale 2023

HAL : https://hal.science/hal-04537803

Catégories
EN

ORCID coverage in research institutions—Readiness for partially automated research reporting

Authors : Kathrin Schnieders, Sandra Mierz, Sabine Boccalini, Wibke Meyer zu Westerhausen, Christian Hauschke, Stephanie Hagemann-Wilholt, Sonja Schulze

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.

URL : ORCID coverage in research institutions—Readiness for partially automated research reporting

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.1010504

Catégories
EN

ORCID growth and field-wise dynamics of adoption: A case study of the Toulouse scientific area

Authors : Marie-Dominique Heusse, Guillaume Cabanac

Research-focused information systems harvest and promote the scientific output of researchers. Disambiguating author identities is key when disentangling homonyms to avoid merging several persons’ records.

ORCID offers an identifier to link one’s identity, affiliations and bibliography. While funding agencies and scholarly publishers promote ORCID, little is known about its adoption rate. We introduce a method to quantify ORCID adoption according to researchers’ discipline and occupation in a higher-education organization.

We semi-automatically matched the 6,607 staff members affiliated to the 145 labs of the Toulouse scientific area with the 7.3 million profiles at orcid.org. The observed ORCID adoption of 41.8% comes with discipline-wise disparities. Unexpectedly, only 48.3% of all profiles listed at least one work and profiles with no works might just have been created to get an identifier.

Those ‘empty’ profiles are of little interest for the entity disambiguation task. To our knowledge, this is the first study of ORCID adoption at the scale of a multidisciplinary scientific metropole. This method is replicable and future studies can target other cases to contrast the dynamics of ORCID adoption worldwide.

URL : ORCID growth and field-wise dynamics of adoption: A case study of the Toulouse scientific area

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1451

Catégories
EN

Two-dimensional books for the new Open Access academic publishing

Author : Fulvio Guatelli

Metadata have become a key element of scientific communication. Indeed, the content of a publication – that is, what we love, discuss and judge – is no longer the alpha and omega of a scientific publication nor its exclusive centre of gravity. Books are gradually taking the form of an iceberg, whose visible part is represented by the content, while the submerged part is constituted by metadata.

In the current communication approach of scientific research, metadata and dissemination go hand in hand, as metadata provide a huge contribution to the success of the research itself.

In this paper, I will illustrate how – in the field of today’s scholarly publishing – best practices, simple metadata, and cataloguing indicators such as DOI and ORCID are taking on the task that was once accomplished by chariots pulled by sturdy horses coming out of Aldo Manuzio’s workshop: spreading books and the discoveries of scientific research all over the world.

URL : Two-dimensional books for the new Open Access academic publishing

Original location : https://jlis.fupress.net/index.php/jlis/article/view/425

Catégories
EN

We Can Make a Better Use of ORCID: Five Observed Misapplications

Authors : Miriam Baglioni, Paolo Manghi, Andrea Mannocci, Alessia Bardi

Since 2012, the “Open Researcher and Contributor ID” organisation (ORCID) has been successfully running a worldwide registry, with the aim of “providing a unique, persistent identifier for individuals to use as they engage in research, scholarship, and innovation activities”.

Any service in the scholarly communication ecosystem (e.g., publishers, repositories, CRIS systems, etc.) can contribute to a non-ambiguous scholarly record by including, during metadata deposition, referrals to iDs in the ORCID registry.

The OpenAIRE Research Graph is a scholarly knowledge graph that aggregates both records from the ORCID registry and publication records with ORCID referrals from publishers and repositories worldwide to yield research impact monitoring and Open Science statistics.

Graph data analytics revealed “anomalies” due to ORCID registry “misapplications”, caused by wrong ORCID referrals and misexploitation of the ORCID registry. Albeit these affect just a minority of ORCID records, they inevitably affect the quality of the ORCID infrastructure and may fuel the rise of detractors and scepticism about the service.

In this paper, we classify and qualitatively document such misapplications, identifying five ORCID registrant-related and ORCID referral-related anomalies to raise awareness among ORCID users.

We describe the current countermeasures taken by ORCID and, where applicable, provide recommendations. Finally, we elaborate on the importance of a community-steered Open Science infrastructure and the benefits this approach has brought and may bring to ORCID.

URL : We Can Make a Better Use of ORCID: Five Observed Misapplications

DOI : http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2021-038