Subscribe to ORCID News feed
Updated: 1 hour 43 min ago

The OI Project Gets Underway: Planning an Open Organization Identifier Registry

Thu, 30 Mar 2017 - 20:06 UTC

At the end of October 2016, Crossref, DataCite, and ORCID reported on collaboration in the area of organization identifiers. We issued three papers for community comment and after input we subsequently announced the formation of The OI Project, along with a call for expressions of interest from people interested in serving on the working group.

We had a great response and are happy to report that the Working Group has now been established, and is already underway with work to develop a plan for an open, independent, not-for-profit, sustainable, organization identifier registry. There is information about the OI Project Working Group on the ORCID website including a list of the 17 Working Group members. They represent a broad range of scholarly communications stakeholders.

The initial goal of the Working Group is to create a thorough and robust implementation plan by the end of 2017. Our scope of work includes three separate but interdependent areas:

Please take a look at the website for more information. We will be providing updates throughout the course of the year.

Want to know more? Contact us with any questions or comments. 


Here We Grow Again: ORCID in the US and Canada

Thu, 30 Mar 2017 - 01:48 UTC

As Director of Membership for ORCID, Douglas Wright manages our team of Regional Directors around the world, as well as having specific responsibility for ORCID membership in the US. Here are his reflections on the US and Canada in 2016, and his predictions for the upcoming year.

Can you give us a picture of ORCID in the US in 2016?

2016 was a busy year for us in the US, with lots of opportunities to meet with all sectors of our community. We hosted a roadshow in California, attended a variety of meetings, and held an outreach meeting in Washington, DC, hosted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). We were delighted to welcome Marcia McNutt, President of the National Academy of Sciences, as our keynote speaker, as well as 150 people from across the research community for a day of panels, lightning talks, small group discussions, and networking.

Building on the work of the Sloan-funded Adoption and Integration program, we have seen growing understanding of ORCID and implementation in university systems in the US.  Over the last year, this has bloomed into four regional ORCID consortia: - CIC (now the Big Ten), GWLA (Great Western Library Alliance), NERL (NorthEast Research Libraries), and Lyrasis.  In addition, joining early federal agency adopters DOE, NIH, and FDA, we welcomed USGS, DOT, EPA, and NASA, as well as the Smithsonian. We’ve also grown our membership in other sectors, so that the US now represents a quarter of all ORCID members.

In terms of community adoption, in January, eight publishers and societies signed an open letter committing to implementing best practices for ORCID integration, and ultimately for requiring ORCID iDs for journal authors. As of the end of 2016 there were 25 signatories, including several of our US-based members - AAAS, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, INFORMS, PLOS, Rockefeller University Press, ScienceOpen, and Wiley - as well as Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and JMIR Publications (Canada). Usage also continued to increase - to well over two million Registry sessions.

And it was a good year for ORCID integrations. In 2016 over 60 US universities began  embedding  ORCID in their research information management/CRIS systems, data and thesis repositories, identity management systems, and more. It’s really exciting to see these projects go live and begin to provide real value to the scholarly community.

What about Canada?

Very early on, to support our users in Canada, we decided to provide the Registry in French.  There are now over 58,000 registrants in Canada and over a quarter of a million Registry sessions. The success of the French language Registry was the impetus for us to support other communities in local language, and we now support 14 languages in the Registry interface. We have been talking with organizations in Canada all along, and in 2016 interest grew as other Commonwealth nations - UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa - began adopting ORCID at scale. We were invited to three ORCID workshops - in Toronto, Ottawa, and Vancouver - where we were able to both share approaches to ORCID from around the world and learn about the needs of the Canadian community.  We were excited to welcome Canadian Research Council, Carleton University, Ifremer, the Journal of Rheumatology, Perimeter Institute, Process Pathways, and the Public Knowledge Project (PKP) as ORCID members during 2016, and we hope that they will soon be joined by many more Canadian organizations as part of a planned national ORCID consortium in 2017 - see the Joint Statement of Principles EN|FR.

And what do things look like for 2017?

We are very much looking forward to engaging with the community during our first ever US roadshow. Between April and September, we will be visiting Chicago, Atlanta, and Dallas, where we will be hosting ORCID community events. We’re delighted that a number of our local ambassadors will be attending and speaking. We’ll also be back in Canada this year, of course - more news on that when the consortium officially launches. And we are starting new initiatives to understand how ORCID may be able to improve connections between researchers and their inventions and patents, and at commercial research organizations. Look for us at professional and industry meetings throughout the year.   

We welcome your input!


Are You Kim, Lee, or Park? ORCID in Asia Pacific

Tue, 28 Mar 2017 - 21:29 UTC

When considering ORCID’s role in Asia-Pacific, it’s important to understand why the need for researchers to be able to differentiate themselves is particularly acute here. Throughout Asia, in particular, name disambiguation is a well-known challenge. Across Korea, China, and India there are a lot of researchers with similar or identical names. In Korea, for example, the surnames Kim, Lee, and Park account for about half the entire population. In China, the most common 100 surnames account for more than 80% of the population. Transliteration is another common problem in many Asian countries, often resulting in names that are different in their original script being spelled the same in the Roman alphabet. And although English is the language of the international research community, particularly in the sciences, many researchers publish in their own language too, and these publications are often not covered in international databases. This makes managing their research portfolio rather complicated, requiring referencing both international and local databases as well as doing repeat author searches for multiple spelling possibilities..

So institutions, publishers, funders, and researchers themselves need to realize that ORCID is really important for them. We’ve already had some success with non-English language publishers; for example, the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors (KAMJE) has adopted ORCID for their journals, and also recently launched KoreaMed search & link wizard. These integrations ensure that Korean medical researchers can easily connect their already published works, as well as having forthcoming publications automatically added to their ORCID record via Crossref auto-update. The sheer volume of local publishers is difficult to reach, however, so this year I will meet with more journal publishers in the region to explain how their international peers are using ORCID, and the benefits of integrating ORCID into their publishing process.

One of the big challenges of my role is the diversity of the countries in the region, from Australia and New Zealand which are very Western countries, to Singapore, which has a huge science sector (though in land mass it’s actually smaller than Tokyo), to Indonesia, which has over 4,000 universities. So, as in the rest of the world, community engagement is a priority for ORCID in Asia Pacific.

During 2016, we held our first outreach meeting in Australia, to coincide with the launch of their national ORCID consortium, comprising 40 research institutions. Over 130 people attended the meeting in Brisbane, including representatives from consortium lead, the Australian Access Federation, and many consortium members. We also ran an ORCID roadshow in western Australia, to meet with members and potential members unable to attend the outreach meeting.  In April, five Taiwanese universities formed a consortium, and the New Zealand national ORCID consortium launched in October with 34 members. The Australian consortium has been very active, both inside their country and also internationally, sharing their approaches and policies as other nations consider adopting ORCID at scale.  In New Zealand, the national lead of the ORCID consortium is piloting a module that organizations with few or no IT resources can use to integrate ORCID. 

Other events included workshops in Singapore, Tokyo and Fukuoka, Japan, Hong Kong, and Indonesia. I also received a lot of invitations to meetings and conferences to talk about ORCID; there is a real appetite to find out more about who we are, what we do, and how we are helping researchers. Thankfully ORCID has 15 volunteer ORCID ambassadors across the region who help to spread the word about the benefits of name disambiguation.

Usage of ORCID in Asia-Pacific continues to grow and now represents 26% of overall Registry use, with China (second highest globally) and India (fourth) especially significant. The ORCID website is available in Chinese and Japanese - and Chinese-language usage, at 11% of the total, is second highest after English. I’m delighted that I will soon be joined by our new Regional Director for China, Jason Hu, who will be starting in early April. Look out for more news about this soon!

Along with researcher use, institutional membership in the region is also steadily increasing. All eight publicly funded universities in Hong Kong are now members.  Japan has the most diverse membership, though small in number, including a funder, two national research institutions, two scholarly societies, two corporations, and two universities. We now have four members from Singapore, three of which joined early this year. While the ORCID community has started growing in these countries, it is also imperative to call for institutional support in other places where we see a huge uptake of individuals but only a small number of member organizations: China (more than 100,000 iDs and just three member organizations), India (more than 40,000 iDs, one member), and Korea (more than 30,000 iDs, one member). Organizations can help their researchers save time by supporting the use of ORCID. See how research organizations are integrating ORCID and building trust in digital information infrastructure. 

We look forward to continued collaborations with all members in Asia-Pacific during 2017. We will be participating in many conferences and meetings in the region throughout the year (CLSTL, ISMTE Asia-Pacific, OR2017, ARMS, to name a few), and also hosting a number of events in the region. We’ve already held our first workshop of the year in the region in Malaysia, with more planned throughout the year - check our events page for updates.


ORCID in Europe: Reasons to be Cheerful

Mon, 27 Mar 2017 - 20:41 UTC

Europe is the region with the most intensive uptake of ORCID, with 40% of Registry usage and close to half our members in 2016. In this post, Josh Brown, formerly Regional Director for Europe (now Director of Partnerships), talks us through developments in 2016; and Matthew Buys, formerly Regional Director for the Middle East & Africa -  whose role has expanded this year to include Europe - shares some of his plans for the region in 2017.


Engagement with ORCID in Europe continues to be high, and we were delighted to meet with members of the community from all sectors at our well-attended workshops in France, Germany, and Spain, and at our first members meeting in England.  Our 2016 member town hall meeting for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa was attended by around 100 people in person and virtually. It was a great opportunity for members to hear about our 2015 activities, 2016 goals, and our Board election process, and for us to hear from them about the use of ORCID in their communities.

We welcomed five new national ORCID consortia members from Europe during 2016. Belgium, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden joined Denmark, Italy, and the UK to bring the total number of consortia members in Europe to eight, collectively representing 215 institutions. By the end of 2016, European members comprised 48% of our total membership of 625 organizations globally.

With this large-scale national adoption in Europe, the community is starting to benefit from the network interoperability effects, as a near-majority of researchers use ORCID iDs as they publish and, increasingly, as they deposit data sets and submit research funding requests.  

For instance, Germany launched a three-year project to integrate ORCID into national systems that require reliable researcher identification.


In 2017, we continue to support our users and members in the region,  and are actively engaged with the research community  at the local and national level in several more countries in Europe, and are seeing growing interest by researchers and universities in Czech Republic, Latvia, Hungary, Russia, and Turkey.

We are planning workshops in Stockholm (May 16), Prague (May 22), and Budapest (May 25) and other events still to be planned - watch our events page for more information nearer the time.

Later this year, we will  be releasing the results of a European Commission funded project: Project THOR. This partnership between ORCID, the British Library, CERN, DataCite, and six other organizations is exploring take-up of identifiers in the humanities, social sciences, physics, and life sciences. THOR’s analysis will provide a clear understanding of the way different countries and disciplines use identifiers. This is helping ORCID and our partners to improve our support for these communities, and for the research community as a whole.

The ORCID European community - of users and members - is growing fast. We have learned a lot as we work with researchers and our members in the region, and thank all of you for your engagement and support.   


ORCID in the Middle East & Africa

Mon, 27 Mar 2017 - 02:07 UTC

Matthew Buys, ORCID’s Regional Director for Europe, Middle East, & Africa, talks about recent developments and upcoming projects in the Middle East and Africa.

Could you begin by introducing some of the challenges of name disambiguation in Africa and the Middle East?

There are three reasons why ORCID is particularly important in Africa and the Middle East: name ambiguity, lack of visibility in a global context, and multi-language publishing.

Not only are there a lot of common names in Africa, but people may use different naming conventions depending on where they publish. And in the Middle East many researchers publish in both English and Arabic, with the same name expressed in two different alphabets. There are also different naming conventions regarding surnames and nicknames.  These all create challenges for identifying  and connecting researchers to their contributions. It’s not surprising, then, that, in our 2015 community survey, African respondents viewed ‘‘mistaken attribution’ is the most important reason to register for an ORCID iD (84% compared with 69% across all other regions).

Text-based searches or  algorithms cannot reliably identify the individual and their associated professional activities – only persistent identifiers can do this.

Interest in ORCID in this region varies a lot. In East Africa the focus is primarily on ORCID for researchers, and the way it creates visibility for them. By having articles connected to their ORCID iD, and by having the ORCID iD connected to other systems globally, researchers get increased visibility for their work and a better digital presence.

In Southern Africa and the Middle East it’s more about interoperability and connections with other systems. Southern Africa, in particular, has a developed research infrastructure in terms of research information management systems, institutional repositories, and a national funding system.

Overall, the key benefits of ORCID for our users and members in the region are the increased visibility for researchers and the trusted digital presence that connects research information across systems. Researchers get a credible online presence, spend less time reporting, and research administrators can use ORCID to keep up-to-date on the professional activities of their researchers.

What were ORCID’s key successes in the region last year?

Compared with the early 2016, there’s now a much better understanding of what ORCID is all about. Crossref was already well known in the region as the persistent ID for content, and ORCID is now equally well known as the persistent ID for individuals. In 2016 traffic to the ORCID registry from MEA doubled, so it’s not just that more people have heard of us, they are also registering for and using an iD.

Hundreds of journals in Africa use Open Journal Systems (OJS), so a key development in 2016 was their improved integration of ORCID. Critically, OJS is now authenticating ORCID iDs, which improves the user experience of connecting their ORCID iD and creates trust in the metadata. The connection of our two systems is really important in this region.

One of the biggest challenges for members in the Middle East & Africa is actually building their ORCID integration. When we discuss membership, everyone can see the use cases, the benefits, and the cost-benefit; the difficulty is to find the skill set and the time within the institution to make the integration happen. IT support departments in African universities are overstretched so it can take a while, even when ORCID integration is a priority. Which brings us to 2017.

So what are your plans for 2017?

It’s important to remember that the public API is of huge benefit to African institutions, as is the fact that the service is free to researchers. ORCID is a non-profit mission-driven community initiative.  It is our mission to work together with the community to build an open research infrastructure.

There are really positive discussions happening at both a national and local level. I’m particularly excited about developments in South Africa, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, including some movements toward a national consortium approach to ORCID adoption and integration. This enables institutions to collaborate on integration, including appointing a dedicated support person to help with the integrations for all consortium members. That will make a huge difference to bandwidth and help members in the region get up and running with their ORCID integration. It’s going to be an exciting year!


Challenges of Measuring PID Adoption

Fri, 24 Mar 2017 - 00:00 UTC
The THOR team is hard at work helping forge the path to sustainable persistent identifier (PID) services – including ORCID iDs. As with any long-term goal, a bit of self-reflection is helpful for tracking your progress, considering your successes, and psyching yourself up to tackle challenges along the way. In the case of a project like THOR, we can help this self-reflection along by developing a structure to help us properly measure our success as we go. But this is often tougher than you might think.   In the early days of PID services, it was fine to be concerned only with uptake, since the priority was to get the word out. While we still have some work to do there, PID services have now matured to the point that we can no longer be satisfied solely with simply "getting the numbers up." We need to tailor our messages in order to drive further innovation towards the interoperable future that THOR and our partners dream of. Having better information about underlying motivations for adopting PIDs and about who might be ready to do so will help us drive the creation of services that will make the whole system better. To further this warm and friendly mission, we need cold hard facts. So how do we go about finding those facts? And how do we turn them into something useful and, quite frankly, a bit less prickly? What can be measured? The first step in evaluating our progress was to set objectives that are actionable and measureable. Though it's tempting to set strict performance targets, this is just setting yourself up for failure. If you define success as selling 50 widgets, and you only sell 48 then, by your own definition, you've failed. In THOR's case, our driving purpose is infrastructure improvement, so we're more interested in observable trends rather than concrete targets. Developing key performance indicators (KPIs) is helpful here. Remember that an indicator is just a way to consider trends (e.g. "number of widgets sold"), and it isn't itself a target (e.g. 50 widgets). How should it be measured? (With which indicators?) The next step was to determine how to measure what we want to measure. The goal here is to select indicators that are valuable as well as meaningful. "Valuable" means that knowing the indicator's status will help us to make a decision. "Meaningful" means that we understand what the indicator is actually tracking. If the trend line associated with our chosen indicator goes up, will we know what that means for us, and will we know how to react?   Part of the difficulty of selecting indicators in this way is that the most meaningful and valuable information for you might not be immediately available. When THOR first started down the indicator path, we just wanted easily gatherable quantitative measures; we weren't looking to take on any complex user studies. However, some of the information we wanted wasn't available, either because it wasn't being tracked on a regular basis or because gathering it ourselves would have been a manual process we weren't yet willing to take on. How should it be measured? (Tool or no tool?) Once you know what your objectives are and which indicators will help you track your progress to those objectives, you need a convenient way to monitor it all. Fancy tools may not be necessary, in fact most of the time they probably aren't, depending on which indicators are important to your particular flavour of success. But we wanted to demonstrate some of the possibilities of having PID measures ready to aggregate -- and if we're honest, we do like fancy -- so we developed a dashboard to keep everything in one place. (Read more about our process in our report.) Creating the dashboard was a good exercise in establishing what could be measured and how. It also gave us a chance to explore what meaningful metrics might be. For instance, we can see that PID uptake is on the rise, and we can see some information about the metadata that is associated with those PIDs, but this doesn't actually give us any insight into causal relationships or let us know precisely why this trend is happening or even exactly who is involved.   Because we're all about meaningful data, these adventures in measurement have led the THOR team to identify gaps in the available metrics surrounding PID service adoption and to consider which additional indicators might be useful for future work in the PID research space. We've now embarked on a more detailed gap analysis that will lead to a study of some of these missing measures. Since our goal is to drive PID service adoption, we've identified disciplinary coverage and geographic distribution as our most promising themes to pursue. We are now collecting the data we need to analyze PID adoption in X disciplines and Y countries – a full report will be available later this year. Moving forward So what have we learned throughout this process? First and foremost, not everything is as concrete as you might want it to be. When you're dealing with humans and human behaviours, things get squishy. Second, since we're only monitoring existing trends based on factors we don't necessarily control, some information available to us will remain just "good enough" until others can do more detailed work to either improve the data or flesh it out. Our job for the remainder of the THOR project is to point out what would be most useful to know about interoperability, so that it can be studied.   The PID field is still evolving and has a lot of growth and changes left in store. Some potentially valuable information requires further study to tease out. Our service adoption study, beginning with the gap analysis, will help us make a start on that research, and we hope to gather some useful information that can set the stage for future work. We'll also need help from the wider PID user and integrator community to improve existing metadata and to help us consider meaningful metrics.   As always, if you have questions or comments about THOR, please get in touch. Blog

Valuing privacy and transparency

Tue, 21 Mar 2017 - 00:00 UTC

Individual control is a core ORCID principle that we reaffirm each year during our audit of ORCID's policies and practices. ORCID users control what information is added to their record, the visibility of that information, and which organizations can access a user's record to read, write, or update their information. Individuals can store information such as their name, contributions, and affiliations in their ORCID record, or grant permission to organizations they trust to provide this information.

An ORCID record contains only metadata, so, for example, for a journal article, ORCID stores the title, author list, date, and DOI, but not the article itself. We also do not collect or store sensitive information, such as a user's address, tax ID, or financial or medical information.

Since 2013 (just after our launch) we have sought independent audit and certification of our Privacy Policy against international standards. This year, ORCID again engaged with a third-party auditor to recertify our privacy policy, and included an assessment of our data privacy management practices against current European Union (EU) regulation. The independent auditor has verified our compliance under the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework.

Privacy Shield, a successor to Safe Harbor, is a framework designed by the US and European Commission to provide organizations on both sides of the Atlantic with a mechanism to comply with data protection requirements when transferring personal data from the EU to the US. ORCID is committed to taking a proactive approach to meeting international privacy regulations, and we continuously monitor and align our operations with these regulations as they are released. We are currently taking steps to align with the EU’s new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) privacy regulations to ensure compliance when it takes effect in May 2018.

In recognition of another core ORCID principle, transparency, we want to highlight two changes in our privacy policy implemented during this year’s annual review.

Tracking technologies

While ORCID does not directly track individual users on our sites, we have always used industry standard third-party technologies to deliver a more secure and efficient website. Some examples of third-party tools that we use include spam protection technology to prevent bots from using the ORCID registry and Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) for faster graphic delivery.  In some cases, these technologies may collect data about users, often for the purposes of serving interest-based advertising on other websites.  We have now added a section in our policy to provide greater awareness of this use. ORCID does not display any advertising on our own site, nor do we receive any form of payment from such advertising, nor do we have access to the data collected.  Those users who do not want their information used for interest-based advertising may opt-out by clicking here (or if located in the European Union click here). (See Section 5 Information we collect for more details.)

Correcting errors

We have added information about making corrections to data in your record when there is invalid data, for example, due to ORCID system errors, changes to standards, null fields, or formatting issues. This change has been made primarily to allow ORCID to correct any errors due to our work. This type of error is fundamentally different from what might be incorrect data such as spelling mistakes, or inaccurate metadata; we will never make corrections to what may be incorrect data without an explicit request from the ORCID record holder. (S/he can also make the corrections him/herself, of course.) For more details about invalid or incorrect data, please review the ORCID Trust Integrity page. (See Section 8 Access, Review, Editing and Changing Data for more information.)

As always, please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns about our privacy policy, including the audit and these recent changes.


New Feature Alert!

Wed, 15 Mar 2017 - 00:00 UTC

ORCID works hard to be responsive to community input and improve the quality of our Registry and services. In response to your feedback on our iDeas Forum and elsewhere, we have been developing a number of features to help users manage their ORCID record; please see our 2017 Roadmap card for more details..

This is the first in our 2017 series of occasional posts to introduce these new features as they become available. This week, three new features have been launched - removing duplicate iDs (requested by several member organizations as well as users), exporting works to BibTex (requested via our iDeasForum), and the ability to filter search and link wizards for importing works.

Removing duplicate iDs

Minimizing duplicate iDs is critical to building trust in ORCID. Although we make every effort to ensure that duplicate records aren’t created, there are still situations where users find they have more than one ORCID record. Until now, users have had to ask our community support team to help merge these records, but now you can remove duplicate ORCID iDs yourself from within your account settings. In a couple of simple steps, items on the duplicate record are merged with your primary ORCID record, with the old iD set up as a pointer to your primary ORCID iD. Find out more about what to do if you have more than one ORCID iD.

Exporting to BibTeX

Importing works to an ORCID record from a BibTeX file has been possible for some time, and users can now also export works to a BibTeX file. It’s an easy process that you can access from the export works header on the works section of the user’s record. Find out more about importing and exporting to BibTex. And we also welcome your suggestions for improving our BibTeX parser!

Search and link wizard filtering

As the number of ORCID search and link wizards for adding works continues to increase, we have added two filters to help you quickly find the most relevant wizards for your needs. You can now filter by work type and/or region. For more information see Linking works to your ORCID record.

Please do remember if you have any suggestions to help us improve the Registry we warmly invite you to submit them to the ORCID iDeas Forum so that other researchers and member organizations can publicly discuss them, offer their own views, and vote for your iDeas!


Celebrating Pi Day the ORCID Way!

Tue, 14 Mar 2017 - 12:41 UTC

Pi Day 2017 is officially here - but ORCID and our community have been partying irrationally for the past few weeks, building up to our very own #ORCIDPi Day, when we celebrated our 3,141,593rd registrant!

We’re delighted to announce that our Pi registrant is Professor Olaf Weyl of the South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, a research facility of member organization the National Research Foundation (South Africa)! Professor Weyl will be receiving his own personalized ORCID t-shirt, a box of delicious ORCID cookies, and some ORCID items to bake his own pie... Professor Olaf commented that he is "proud to be Pi"!

To celebrate with our wider community, we launched the #ORCIDPiDay countdown together with an online competition for the best pie pictures and tweets. Thanks to everyone who to everyone who took part; the lucky winners are:

Best Pie - Mathis O Riehle 
Best Tweet - Simon Kerridge

Special Mention - Oxford PharmaGenesis

(100/166 employees signed up for an ORCID during the run-up to ORCID Pi Day!)

Special Mention - Karama Neal

(The perfect Pi Day music!)

We’ve also taken advantage of this opportunity to thank our 25 oldest members with Pi Day cookies - not to mention thanking our Board with these delicious pies baked by Laure Haak, our Executive Director!


You might think after so many pies we could barely move? Wrong! To celebrate our 3,141,593 registrant we also launched a Spotify Playlist featuring the best Pi -and of course pie- songs.


ORCID has come a long way since 2012 - from zero to Pi - and today we want to thank you all and wish you a happy (ORCID) Pi Day!


eLife collects ORCIDs from authors of accepted papers at proofing

Tue, 07 Mar 2017 - 16:08 UTC

Authenticating researchers’ ORCIDs can be a daunting task for scholarly publishers, particularly for works with multiple authors. Requesting iDs from the corresponding author is the logical first step, whether by offering ORCID as a sign-in or registration option, or by allowing authors to link their profile in the manuscript submission platform with their iD. Many publishers now collect authenticated iDs from co-authors during the submission process and embed them in the manuscript’s metadata.

eLife is delighted to announce that we have taken our ORCID integration one step further, by giving contributing authors an opportunity to associate their authenticated ORCID iD with their work during the production process. When corresponding authors share the proof link with their co-authors, they are required to sign in via ExeterPremedia’s Kriya platform using their ORCIDs, which will then be collected and displayed with the article and delivered downstream to platforms such as PubMed and Crossref.

eLife, together with PLOS and The Royal Society, was the driving force behind an open letter published in January last year, committing to requiring ORCIDs in publication workflows. We were one of the original signatories and among the first to implement our ORCID mandate for submitting authors. We have been keen to collect authenticated iDs during the production process because we often receive requests to add ORCIDs at this stage. We see this as the best solution for both our authors and our workflow, as it enables even more authors to uniquely connect themselves with their eLife papers. Authors also benefit from the ORCID auto-update process by having their authenticated ORCIDs submitted to Crossref.

As well as showing our support for ORCID by signing the open letter, eLife is one of ORCID’s first member organisations to qualify for its Collect badge – part of its Collect & Connect initiative to encourage a community-based approach to developing integrations that benefit researchers, their organisations, and the wider scholarly community.

Authors who authenticate their ORCIDs during the production process will benefit later down the line, as eLife will retain their iDs within their profiles. Our reviewers are already benefitting from the initiative through the peer-review functionality, which enables us to add their reviewing activities for eLife to their ORCID records.

Contributing authors will be able to authenticate their ORCID iDs during eLife’s production process from today (March 7, 2017). Other publishers using the ExeterPremedia production platform will also be able to start collecting iDs during the production process.

This is a slightly edited version of a post published today in eLife News


Meet Joe Schwarze, our Privacy Specialist

Thu, 02 Mar 2017 - 23:30 UTC

ORCID has always been grounded by the 10 principles that guide our work and emphasize our commitment to being a respectful, reliable, inclusive, and accountable partner in the research community. This includes respecting the privacy of ORCID iD-holders, and their ability to control what information is connected to their ORCID record, whether that information is shared, and with whom. In late 2016, we launched our ORCID Trust Frameworkto provide greater transparency for the programs, policies, and practices that are foundational to our principles.

In December 2016, we further recognized our commitment to our principles and the Trust Framework by hiring Joe Schwarze as our Privacy Specialist, a new position focused on user privacy and data security..

Please tell us a bit about yourself

My full name is Joseph, but please call me Joe. I am originally from New Jersey, US - the very northern tip of what many people call the “Shore” (but no I am not like any of the characters in the TV show “Jersey Shore”!).  I am now based in Austin, Texas. I attended Stevens Institute of Technology, where I majored  in Cybersecurity; before joining ORCID, my professional career was focused on privacy concerns and regulatory compliance. Most of my recent work has been on the newly formed Privacy Shield program and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

What interested you the most in this field and the position at ORCID?

I like to consider myself an oddball when it comes to security majors, as I was always more interested in the privacy and regulatory side as opposed to the technical security implementation, which most of colleagues preferred. One of my favorite projects in college was writing a research paper on HIPAA. I did an analysis on the regulations and penalties put in place by the act, and then tracked how many hands private information could potentially touch after an individual signs a consent form.

I share ORCID’s values and principles of transparency and user control, which is a key reason why I was interested in this position. Often we see organizations hide behind a wall of obscurity, but ORCID is proud of its privacy policies and I am excited to be part of the team.

You’ve been here for a few months now. What have you been up to so far?

It has been a busy first few months! My core role is to manage the ORCID Trust program and ensure that we stay true to our values and principles of transparency and user control. So, my first project was to lead this year’s annual re-certification of our privacy policy. Within my first week, I was already deep-diving the privacy policy for the annual re-certification. I’ve also been formalizing our internal training on privacy and data security..

What are your major projects for the rest of 2017?

In 2017 I plan to help formalize and continue to improve ORCID’s Trust Program. This work will include projects like reviewing our policies and practices for consistency with the program, and building materials to support our users and member organizations as they work with ORCID tools within the spirit of the program. I’ll also be monitoring global activity and trends as they relate to program topics like privacy, security, and transparency; I’ll incorporate what I learn to ensure that our Trust Program remains relevant.

How are you going to be intereacting with the ORCID community?

Aligning with ORCID’s commitment to transparency, the community needs to be part of the Trust program. We are therefore kicking off a Trust Working Group comprised of members of the community. This group will be crucial in providing input and feedback to the ORCID Board and staff as we continue to build and evolve this program.

In addition, I am looking forward to creating resources for the community, including a series of general blog posts about security and privacy. If you have any topics in which you are particularly interested, please let me know. ORCID is lucky to have a really active community and I look forward to hearing suggestions from you.

Finally, there is so much good work being done in the research and scholarship infrastructure community, and I expect to participate in these communities as well.

Any parting words?

I just want to reiterate how crucial community involvement is for the Trust program. Please send suggestions and feedback for how we are doing!


(ORCID) Pi Day is Coming!

Tue, 21 Feb 2017 - 00:00 UTC

In March 2017 we will see our 3,141,593rd ORCID registrant and we’re planning to celebrate with our very own ORCID Pi Day!

We’ve come a long way since our launch in October 2012. As well as over three million registrants, we now have well over 650 organizational members, who have launched 300 or so integrations – with another 200 in the pipeline. We are lucky to be supported by an active and engaged Board, as well as a team of around 60 ORCID ambassadors around the world, and members of our community working groups.

We’d like to take this opportunity to recognize the 25 members who have been with us since our launch – each will be receiving Pi Day cookies to help us celebrate this milestone:

  • American Physical Society
  • American Psychological Association
  • Aries Systems
  • Association of Computing Machinery
  • Boston University
  • California Institute of Technology
  • CERN
  • Clarivate Analytics (formerly Thomson Reuters)
  • Copernicus
  • Cornell University
  • CrossRef
  • Elsevier
  • Faculty of 1000
  • Figshare
  • Harvard University
  • Hindawi
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
  • Modern Language Association
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Nature Publishing Group (now Springer Nature)
  • New York University Langone School of Medicine
  • Springer (now Springer Nature)
  • University of Michigan
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Wiley

Not to forget our wider community! All of the researchers, research administrators, librarians, funders, publishers, repository managers, service providers, and others of you who have contributed to our success and continue to do so. Thank you!

So, how will we be celebrating ORCID Pi Day? And how can you get involved?

Beginning today, we will be counting down on Twitter the number of registrations to go until we reach our 3,141,593rd – probably right around the week of the official Pi Day – as well as tweeting fun facts about ORCID, Pi (and pie). So, if you don’t already follow us on Twitter, make sure you sign up now (@ORCID_Org)!

Every week until Pi Day, we will be announcing a competition – for the person with the most Pi-related works and other outputs in their ORCID record, the best pie recipes, and the best ORCID Pi Day tweet. Winners, whose entries will be anonymized and voted on by the ORCID team, will receive a special ORCID Pi Day package – apron, spatula, and whisk – so that you can create your own pies in style!

We’re also creating an ORCID Pi Day Spotify playlist and will be inviting you to add your contributions.

And, on ORCID Pi Day itself, we will contact the lucky Pi registrant to congratulate her/him and arrange for their shipment of ORCID goodies. Runner-up goodies will be sent to the five people whose registrations are closest in time to the Pi registrant.

Please join us for some fun celebrations of ORCID's one and only Pi Day!


What's So Special About Signing In?

Thu, 16 Feb 2017 - 00:00 UTC

We are sometimes asked “Why are researchers asked to sign in to their ORCID account when they make a connection?”, or “Why can’t users just copy and paste their ORCID iD into a system?”. There are two reasons why signing in is so important. Firstly, when a researcher signs in (or “authenticates”), they can choose what happens to their account - it keeps them in control of their own information. Secondly, once a researcher has signed in, the connections they make to their ORCID iD are more useful - to them and to anyone else who wants to see those connections.

Let’s start by looking at what information a connection actually contains. We’ll use an example of a common connection: a link between an author and a journal article.The author is identified with their ORCID iD, and the article is identified with a DOI. A simple ‘back of an envelope’ sketch might help to explain what is going on...

When the author has signed into their ORCID account to make the connection, they can choose to add their iD to the article. They can give permission (or ‘authorize’) for the journal to add information to their ORCID record, and they can give the journal permission to update their record if information about the publication changes. Anyone who looks at this connection can see how the connection was made, and who made it.

This information is what we mean when we talk about ‘provenance’.

Without signing in, there is no provenance information, as shown in the following sketch. 

With no provenance, there is no way of knowing if you can trust the connection between (in this case) the researcher (the iD) and her/his work (the DOI). It may contain errors, or it may not belong to the author. Worse, this connection is closed - it cannot be used to add information to an ORCID record or supporting systems, nor can the publisher update it in the future if the information changes.

Signing in ensures the researcher has control over what connections are made to their iD and what happens to their ORCID record. We have worked hard to ensure researchers have this control; researcher control is one of our main principles. This means that organizations must ask for permission to use the individual’s iD or to add and update information in their record, or ask for access to read data available to trusted parties in their record.

In addition to managing what is connected to their iD, researchers also decide how to share that information.

Information researchers mark as visible to "everyone" is available to the public. Other information can be made visible to "trusted parties" only, which means organizations must ask for permission to see it. Finally, researchers also have the option to mark items as visible to "only me" -- private. They can do this for each individual item in their ORCID record, or set a default visibility for all their items.

Asking for explicit permission to interact with a researcher’s record is best practice in data protection. You can find out more about what that means here. Researchers know who is asking for permission, and what exactly they are asking for permission to do. This means that they are giving informed consent before any information moves between systems. Researchers can see what permissions they have granted by looking at their account settings, and they can cancel permissions at any time. For more information, please see Granting Access to Third-Party Organizations.

We mentioned trust already. Trust is very important to ORCID. In fact, it’s so important, we built a whole program around it. Researchers need to be able to trust us to look after their information, and to make it easy for them to control their record. Organizations need to be able to trust the iDs that they use and to ensure the information they’re connecting to an ORCID record is trustworthy. In turn, this will mean that everyone can trust this information.

The provenance information that is created when a researcher signs in (authenticates) is an essential part of trust. It shows which connections have been made. It means that the iD itself has been passed directly from one computer to another (using our API - you can find out more about the technical details of that here), so there are no typos or mistakes. Plus, iDs can only be authenticated by a researcher with the correct username and password for that iD, so you can be confident that permission was given by the account owner.

By using authentication, and connecting systems to ORCID using the API, our members protect researchers (by doing the right thing under data protection law, and by helping them to understand why and how their iD is being used) and they protect themselves by using secure, trusted connections. It helps everyone to be able to see if information about an article has come from the journal that published it, or if information about someone’s employment has come from their employer. We all have a responsibility to help make sure that the information we share is accurate, and that it is shared in a way that is useful to the community.

At ORCID, we think a lot about how we can help our members, and the more than 3 million researchers who have registered for an iD, to stay in control of their information. Authentication is one of the best tools we have to deliver that control to you, our community.







All About our New API: An Interview with Rob Peters, Director of Technology

Mon, 13 Feb 2017 - 22:18 UTC

In this interview Rob Peters, ORCID's Director of Technology, introduces ORCID's new API – launched on February 14, 2017

Before we start talking about the new API, can you tell us a bit about ORCID’s Technical Team and your role as Director?

At first glance, the ORCID team looks much like any other technical team. We have five developers, a server administrator, a quality assurance analyst, and, of course, a manager (me). However, where it gets interesting is our different geographical, cultural, and work backgrounds. Three of us are US-based, three are based in Costa Rica, and two are based in the UK, so geographically we get a lot of perspective. In addition, some of us are from traditional software consulting, others come from the publishing industry, “Silicon Valley” startups, and library sciences.

My personal role as Director of Technology is managing the day-to-day software development. That boils down to helping my team communicate with each other and the rest of the organization, as well as managing which tasks the team takes on (and which get put off). I also get the opportunity to have a lot of input on higher-level strategic decisions ORCID makes.

Moving onto API version 2.0 – why do we – ORCID, as well as the ORCID community – need this upgrade?

The first ORCID API, which launched in October 2012, was inevitably based on many assumptions that later proved wrong and/or required refining. To better serve the research community, we have to continuously examine those assumptions. Using feedback, asking questions, and looking at evidence that wasn’t available before we launched has given us new insights into what the ORCID API should and shouldn’t be. As you’ll see from my answer to the next question, Version 2.0 represents a major break from the assumptions that 1.0 was built on, while still being pragmatic enough to provide continuity between the two APIs.

What are the main differences between 1.2 and 2.0 and how will they benefit members?

In developing 2.0, we wanted to both address the roadblocks that members have been hitting with 1.2 and also introduce new functionality that we know the community wants. 

So as well as tackling known issues such as scalability in managing hyper-authored publications, and challenges with implicit behavior that were causing confusion for members, we have also added new functionality to support peer review recognition, improved notifications for users, and the ability to support almost any persistent identifier.

To explain why some of these changes were needed, I'm going to get a bit technical.  Before we set out to code a single new line, we made a list of things we wanted to see improved, with the following "manifesto":

  • Stop thinking of the ORCID record as a monolithic (large single) document. Multiple institutions writing to an ORCID record means recognizing the record is multi-tenant. Additionally, researchers often produce such vast amounts of research that even summaries of it won't fit in a monolithic document.
  • Simplified scopes. The granularity of permissions scopes in the 1.0 API is overwhelming for all parties involved; simplifying them will make life easier for developers and users alike.
  • Explicit RESTful behavior. Implicit behaviors are bad for implementers since they lead to unexpected behavior which, in turn, confuses end users. By using RESTful behavior, our new API avoids these problems.
  • Shortest reasonable urls. A good example would be /works/1234 is better than /orcid-works/1234.
  • Calls to list only return summaries. In order to make calling a record faster, API 2.0 only returns summaries for lists. Doing one call for every piece of information about a researcher doesn’t work for hyper-authored articles, where there are tens, hundreds, or even thousands of authors.
  • Common names and structures for common elements. 2.0 enables us to make sure common elements in the XML/JSON have the same names.
  • Error codes. We now include error codes in the response body when the error is not fully described by a standard HTTP code.
And what are the benefits for users?

At the end of the day, an API should be seamless to users. Unexpected 1.0 behaviour bubbles up and affects the user's experience while at the same time frustrating the developers who are implementing the API. On a practical level the new API enables streamlining each section in the ORCID record to consistently provide application of visibility settings, source, and creation date for items in each section.

Will this affect the Public API as well? How?

Yes. Changes to the Member API and Public API are always in lockstep. Although we appreciate and rely on member support we also are committed to our larger vision “of a world where all who participate in research, scholarship, and innovation are uniquely identified and connected to their contributions across disciplines, borders, and time.” We see the Public API as a means of helping achieve that goal.  

What do you think will be the main challenges in rolling out the new version, and what support will ORCID be providing?

The hardest issue is putting aside resources to do the work to upgrade. For some organizations it might be as little as a couple of days and other might require a full month. Regardless of the timeframe, don’t be afraid to reach out and ask for help, even for a little detail that is stopping your progress. Full documentation is available now on members.orcid.org and ORCID member organizations can also contact support@orcid.org. Posting to the API Users Forum can be useful, bringing in comments from across the ORCID community. I’m also a firm believer in being directly available, so feel to email me directly.

Who is currently using API 2.0 and what sort of feedback have they provided?  

We put a lot of effort into making release candidates available in order to get feedback. CrossRef, Datacite, CERN, and PTCRIS are just a few of the ORCID members who’ve implemented a release candidate and provided feedback. In addition, several organizations have implemented peer review functionality using 2.0, including early adopters, the American Geophysical Union, F1000, and Publons. Feedback has included the usual “techie” suggestions such as names used in schema, endpoint naming, or debates about efficiency. Those kind of details can have big implications for members. However release candidates implementers also provide feedback from the researcher's perspective, which we find invaluable.

How long will ORCID continue to support the old API?

We are aiming to sunset 1.2 in late 2017. Regardless of the sunset date, if you agree with ORCID’s mission and care about researchers interact with ORCID you’ll want to move to 2.0 now. 

Anything else we should know about this change?

We hope 2.0 proves to be durable and we can focus on other parts of the ORCID technology stack for a good while!

For a fun and handy summary of API 2.0 features, see this slide deck!


Draft display guidelines for iDs in articles open for comment

Fri, 10 Feb 2017 - 00:00 UTC

For many researchers, their first encounter with ORCID is seeing a green iD icon beside an author’s name in a journal article. As more publishers integrate ORCID into publication systems, and some requiring ORCID in publication workflows, more researchers are encountering iDs as they submit their work. At the same time, we have been receiving more requests from publishers about appropriate display of ORCID iDs in published works.

In July 2016, we formed a community working group on the display of ORCID iDs in articles to review and update our existing display guidelines. The working group has collected questions, recommendations, and use cases from the community, taking into consideration that styles and spacing concerns will differ between publishers, journals, and individual articles. We are now releasing the draft guidelines in an open Google document for public comment. Following the public comment period, the working group will review and, as appropriate, incorporate feedback and release the final guidelines.

The draft guidelines set three clear goals: to help promote the use of ORCID iDs by authors by increasing visibility in the publishing process; to provide clear display options to support consistency in implementation and use; and to provide criteria so publishers can assess display effectiveness.

IDs must be clearly associated with their respective authors. The iD display should always include an active hyperlink to the ORCID URI. The guidelines encourage that ORCID iDs be included with Crossref submissions (which, in turn, allows researchers to benefit from automated updates to their ORCID record) and in CrossMark deposits. Finally, they also give recommendations on the display of ORCID iDs in hyper-authored articles – those with 50 or more authors.

There are two specific areas where the guidelines would benefit from community feedback:

  • Display effectiveness assessment: What is effective iD display, and how should publishers measure it? Is it clearly marking the ORCID iD in some form? Providing a full display of the iD icon and http(s) URI, both hyperlinked? Displaying the iD in all forms – html, pdf, and in metadata? Should display be assessed in tiers based on a combination of elements?
  • Encouragement of HTTPS: ORCID is moving toward the use of HTTPS when displaying iDs for more secure browsing. While we haven’t yet made this change, we recognize that it would be a significant change for those organizations using ORCID APIs. The HTTP display is the version most commonly used by publishers and others when displaying ORCID iDs – particularly in the metadata deposited in Crossref. Your input on challenges this change would cause for your organization or community would be very helpful.

We invite you to submit your comments, questions, and concerns in the shared Google document or by email to community@orcid.org. The open period for input is February 10 - March 31, 2017. We look forward to hearing from you!


ORCID in 2017: Let’s Get this Party Started!

Wed, 08 Feb 2017 - 16:45 UTC

We have two big milestones coming up in 2017: celebrating ORCID Pi Day (our 3,141,593rd registrant - coming soon!) and the fifth anniversary of the ORCID Registry launch in October. We are also planning to launch our first community awards, for excellence in integrations.  

We wouldn’t be here without your support.  We are built by and for the community, and we rely on your trust and continued involvement. Trust, transparency, and inclusiveness are at the core of everything we do - all of our guiding principles relate back to one or more of them.

It’s more important than ever to expose how information is connected, involve individuals in managing their information, ensure that we have a reliable infrastructure and transparent governance.  For us, that means using persistent identifiers for people, places, and things.

Building trust requires the active participation of everyone involved - the individual innovators and the organizations providing innovation infrastructure.  That means using your ORCID iD.  Integrating ORCID iDs.  Ensuring implementation of best practices:  authorization, authentication, and automation.  

In solidarity, we will be eating our own dog food. Practicing what we preach.  Demonstrating through our actions.  Being an exemplar for best practice.  ORCID team members will have authenticated affiliations.  We will be collecting ORCID iDs from workshop participants and connecting these activities to their ORCID record. We will be embedding ORCID iDs and DOIs in our blog posts, presentations, and white papers. We are participating in a broad community effort on organization identifiers.

Another part of trust is making sure that ORCID services are here for the long term.  We have begun work on our five-year strategic plan, and will be engaging you for input and feedback throughout the year.   Please join us at our regional workshops, member meetings, and on our regular webinars. Share your ideas!

But that is not all!  We will also be working on improvements for users, including making password reset much much easier!  (I can hear a collective sigh of relief!)

We have a lively dance card for 2017. In past years we shared our technical development goals; this year we have expanded our public roadmap to include goals across the organization, now available on our public Trello board. Organized around our three guiding pillars - Sustain, Lead, Mature - all members of the ORCID team (that includes you) will be working on these goals.   

  • Financial breakeven: Achieve the point of financial break even - when monthly accrued revenue is equal to the monthly expenses
  • Improve support for our Ambassadors and partners: To enhance the effectiveness and cohesiveness of ORCID community outreach programs
  • Expand Collect & Connect: Build on the momentum created in 2016 to establish Collect & Connect  at the heart of all current and future ORCID integrations; improve support for member integrations; publicly recognize the best of those integrations; and encourage the sharing of best practices and other learning points
  • Improve quality of Registry and services: Improve functionality and services that already exist, with each department focusing on ongoing pain points to solve for 2017 
  • Ensure prudent, community-based decision-making: Track KPIs, re-examine why we are collecting them, and think about the health of ORCID in the context of the health of the larger research ecosystem 
  • User/member interface improvements: Improve data management interfaces for Registry and API users, with a specific focus on member self-management and Registry UI improvements
  • Eat our own dog food: Implement Collect and Collect processes for ORCID staff and in our interactions with our members and users, such as ORCID meetings, membership contact management, and how we share information externally
  • ORCID milestones: Celebrate our milestones! Use ORCID's own Pi Day and our fifth anniversary to take stock of our progress, look to the future, and engage with our community
  • Build momentum across policy bodies and sectoral influencers: Shape conversations in key sectors about PIDs and scholarly communications more generally to ensure that our vision is influencing the widest possible audience
  • Explore new user communities: Further develop the diversity in our member communities, and expand the base from which future memberships will be realized
  • Develop and roll out ORCID curriculum and training resources: Transform our approach to outreach and training to be more strategic, proactive, and forward-looking
  • Improve consortia onboarding and sharing of effective practices: Strengthen the ability to share ideas and effective strategies within and between consortia
  • Improve resilience of ORCID services: Build a resilient organization, using multi-tiered approaches to buffer against the unexpected and ensure longevity of the Registry and associated services
  • Lead in developing and implementing trusted researcher-centric infrastructure: : Continued leadership in privacy practices, including developing policies, updating practices, and rolling out staff training and external services

You may track our progress on the Trello board throughout the year, and we will be reporting back regularly via our blog, Twitter, at ORCID events, and more. I welcome your ideas, comments, and support!


KoreaMed now provides ORCID Search & Link Wizard!

Wed, 18 Jan 2017 - 00:00 UTC

We are delighted to announce that KoreaMed, a service of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors (KAMJE), now allows researchers to search, select, and link KoreaMed articles directly from the ORCID interface to their ORCID record.

Since its launch in 1999, KoreaMed has focused on providing global access to Korean medical journals by preparing all the metadata in English and aggressively adopting global publishing standards such as PubMed XML, JATS, and DOI. “It was only natural to integrate ORCID in KoreaMed, considering the difficulty of name disambiguation in our country,” said Dr. Tae-Il Kim, Professor and Vice Dean of the School of Dentistry at Seoul National University and Vice Chairman of the KAMJE Information Management Committee.

The three most common Korean last names - Kim, Lee, Park - account for nearly half of the Republic of Korea’s population, and these names can have multiple transliterations. Soon after the ORCID Registry started in October 2012, KAMJE introduced ORCID to its journals, and made it possible to search authors by their iDs in KoreaMed and Synapse, KAMJE’s digital archive and DOI landing platform. KoreaMed indexes more than 200 journals, many of which already facilitate the ORCID auto-update by Crossref so that newly published articles are added to ORCID records automatically once granted permission by the author.

“KoreaMed's archives go back to the 1950’s. Previously, adding these old articles to ORCID records was difficult as they don’t have DOIs and are not searchable in Crossref Metadata Search or other tools provided by ORCID,” said Dr. Choon Shil Lee, Sookmyung Women’s University professor and KAMJE Committee member. With the new KoreaMed Search & Link wizard, however, researchers publishing in Korean journals can easily add their past publications and make their ORCID records more complete.  Once an article is claimed, it will be searchable by ORCID iD (as well as by researcher name), providing a more accurate author search in KoreaMed. The works added to ORCID records from KoreaMed will retain their KUID, a unique article identifier in the database, making it possible for other ORCID integrators to match articles easily by known KUIDs.

For a step-by-step introduction to this new tool, please see Dr. Lee’s slides  presented at the KAMJE Editor’s Academy on December 9, 2016.

“KAMJE is operated by a group of researchers and journal editors. We are all enthusiastic to improve the accessibility and visibility of our own work. Local journals in any country would be less visible from the rest of the world unless we in the research community make the effort ourselves,” said Dr. Oh Hoon Kwon, KAMJE Vice President and Information Management Committee Chairman. Their volunteer spirits resonate well with ORCID’s community-driven approach, and we welcome the addition of KoreaMed Search & Link Wizard.

Dr. Choon Shil Lee, presents KoreaMed's Search & Link Wizard at the KAMJE Editor’s Academy, December 9, 2016


2016: The Year in Review

Thu, 29 Dec 2016 - 00:00 UTC

Our mantra for 2016 was Sustain, Lead and Mature - a steady beat that helped focus our efforts throughout the year. It has been a full year with much growth and activity for ORCID, and we made great progress in all three areas.


This year’s 50% increase in new ORCID iDs has brought us to a total of 2.9 million active iDs that can be used in over 500 systems worldwide. ORCID users also benefited from updates to the ORCID record interface, including fine-tuned control over the visibility of personal information such as alternate names and email addresses, and more complete information about the source of information on their record.

We now have 601 member organizations financially supporting our mission, up 29% from 465 this time last year. Many joined through one of our seven new consortia deals in 2016 (doubling the total!) in Belgium, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, New Zealand, and Taiwan, as well as the LYRASIS consortium in the US.

This growth was fueled by workshops in over 15 countries, as well as well-attended outreach meetings in Canberra, Australia in February and Washington, DC in November.

Finally, we deeply appreciate the continued support of The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, which provided ORCID with follow-on funding in October. This generous 18-month grant is allowing us to both leverage the progress we have made engaging the community and increasing ORCID adoption, and also to ensure that our technical offering scales appropriately as we grow.


Our progress toward sustainability is underpinned by our commitment to leadership. In January, eight publishers signed an open letter committing their organizations to requiring iDs and adhering to ORCID’s best practices for doing so. They have since been joined by a further 17, including most recently two major societies - the American Chemical Society and the Royal Society of Chemistry - and one of the world’s largest scholarly publishers, Wiley.

We also focused on increasing awareness of iDs and their use, including:

We also partnered with many organizations throughout the year to help progress topics related to ORCID’s work, including:

  • PIDapalooza: We worked with California Digital Library, Crossref, and DataCite on this new conference promoting persistent identifiers in general, which brought together 120 people involved in creating and using PIDs.
  • Peer Review Week: We helped organize the second annual Peer Review Week, working with representatives from 25+ other organizations to draw attention to recognition of this important activity.
  • Organization Identifiers: WIth Crossref and DataCite, we are leading a community effort to better understand the needs around organization identifiers, including helping to form a working group on the topic that will convene in early 2017.

2016 saw us holding our first Board election, a sure sign of ORCID’s increasing maturity as an organization. We were greatly encouraged by the significant participation by our organizational members, and look forward to welcoming our six newly-elected members to their three-year terms on our 15-person board in the new year.

We also developed an important new program, ORCID Trust, that strengthened the work we had already done in ensuring user control and strong privacy/dispute procedures. We extended this work to include recognition of our obligations to the community in terms of sustainability, business model, and governance, and information about how we enable trusted connections between individuals and their contributions and affiliations.

Finally, we have started the process of increasing ORCID interoperability by enabling alternate methods for signing into ORCID using Facebook, Google, or a university/institutional account.

Planning for the year to come

Our 2017 roadmap activities are organized around the same three pillars: Sustain, Lead and Mature. Much of this work will be extending and strengthening the work of 2016, and we also plan to build our capabilities and resiliency as an organization in order to be able to better respond to change, the opportunities that come our way, and the expectations of the community. We will share more of these plans in early 2017.

Until then, thank you to our team, our Board, our members, iD holders and the ORCID community for another fantastic and full year. We wish you all the hope and happiness of the season.



Season's greetings!

Thu, 22 Dec 2016 - 19:53 UTC
Season's greetings from everyone at ORCID!

With thanks to everyone who helped us grow in 2016

  • We welcomed 136 new organizational members, and are now 601 members strong
  • Six new consortia formed -- in Belgium, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Taiwan -- and a fourth regional consortium in the US, making a total of 14 ORCID consortia globally, actively increasing ORCID adoption in local communities
  • Close to a million more researchers registered for an iD, raising our user base from 1.89 million to 2.84 million
  • Our members built and launched 62 new integrations, and researchers now have over 500 systems in which they can use their iD





ORCID Board Election Results

Sat, 17 Dec 2016 - 12:00 UTC

We are pleased to announce our latest class of ORCID board members!  The ORCID Nominating Committee put up a slate of nominees for the six open seats on our 15-member Board.  All 582 of our organizational members as of 15 November 2016 were eligible and provided credentials to vote in an on-line election, open from 15 November to 14 December 2016. We formalized the vote during an in-person Members meeting on 15 December 2016.  

We thank our membership, 40.7% of whom voted, for your participation in this important process.  And I thank the Nominating Committee, in particular the Chair, Robert Kiley of the Wellcome Trust, for their hard work and dedication.  Finally, I thank our outgoing Board members for their exemplary service to ORCID: Hideaki Takeda, of NII and Thomas Hickey of OCLC, who have been with ORCID since before there was a Board; Marta Soler, who brought her expertise in Social Sciences and Humanities to the Board as our researcher member; and Daniel Forsman of Chalmers University of Technology who brought a technical library perspective and clarity on issues of privacy.

Please join us in welcoming our new and returning Board members, whose three-year term will commence on 1 January.  

Patricia Brennan (Second term)

As Vice President, Engineering and Product Management Thomson Reuters (now Clarivate) Intellectual Property & Science Division, Brennan is responsible for Platform Applications and Development including Web of Science and InCites. Brennan joined Thomson Reuters in 2001 with roles in Editorial Development and Journal Selection, Product Management, and Technology Development. Previous, she held positions at Harvard University and the Association of Research Libraries. At ARL, Brennan created ARL-Announce, its first online communications program. In addition to serving on the ORCID Board, she has been active in national information standards initiatives in the US, chairing the NISO Business Information Topic Committee, serving on the COUNTER International Advisory Board and the Audit Committee, and the NFAIS Statistics and Usage task force. Brennan has an MS in Library and Information Science from The Catholic University of America and a BA in English Literature from the University of Maryland, College Park.

Andrew Cormack

Serving as chief regulatory adviser for Jisc technologies since 2004, Cormack keeps Jisc technologies and customers of the Janet network informed about the legal, policy and security issues around networks and networked services. He joined and joined JANET, the UK’s National Research and Education Network, as Head of CERT in 1999. Prior, he was a programmer and internet systems administrator at Cardiff University and a Senior Scientific Officer at NERC. Cormac is a member of European and global incident response and federated access management communities, and in 2016 served on the ORCID Trust community advisory group. He has an MA in Maths from the University Cambridge, Bachelors and Masters degrees in law, and has published papers on legal issues in incident response, domain names, Internet identifiers, and learning analytics.

Richard de Grijs (Researcher)

Richard de Grijs joined the Kavli Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics at Peking University (China) in 2009 as a full professor; and served as acting associate director in 2012–2013. After completion of his PhD at the University of Groningen (Netherlands) in 1997, he held postdoctoral fellowships at the Universities of Virginia (USA) and Cambridge (UK), followed by a faculty appointment at the University of Sheffield (UK). Richard has been a Scientific Editor of The Astrophysical Journal (American Astronomical Society) since 2006 and was promoted to Deputy Editor of The Astrophysical Journal Letters in 2012. He is Director of the East Asian Regional Office of Astronomy for Development (International Astronomical Union), as well as Discipline Scientist (Astrophysics) at the International Space Science Institute–Beijing. He was awarded the 2012 Selby Award for excellence in science by the Australian Academy of Science and a 2017 Erskine Award by the University of Canterbury (New Zealand), as well as visiting professorships by, among others, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (at Leiden University) and at Shanghai Astronomical Observatory.

Daniel Hook

Daniel Hook was appointed Managing Director, Digital Science in July 2015. He has been involved in research information management and software development for more than a decade and a vocal advocate for open access and open data for several years. Hook has held positions as Director of Research Metrics at Digital Science, Co-founder and CEO of Symplectic and COO of Figshare. By training, he is a mathematical physicist specializing in quantum theory. Hook continues to be an active researcher holding visiting positions at Imperial College London and Washington University in St Louis. He holds Bachelors, Masters, and Doctoral degrees in physics from Imperial College London is a Fellow of the Institute of Physics in the UK.

Linda O’Brien

As Pro Vice Chancellor, Information Services at Griffith University, O’Brien is a member of the University Executive leading the development and implementation of university information strategy. She has substantial executive leadership experience in the tertiary education sector having worked in six Australian universities including the roles of Vice Principal, Information and Chief Information Officer at the University of Melbourne, and Vice President, University Services at the University of Newcastle. O’Brien has published and presented nationally and internationally in her field, and contributed to a number of state and national initiatives including: Chair, Australian Open Access Working Group (2016) - developing a national statement on open access to Australia’s research outputs; CAUL Representative on the Australian ORCID Working Group Australia (2015), which developed the Joint Statement of Principle: ORCID - connecting researchers and research and established the Australian ORCID Consortium comprising of 40 universities and research institutions; Chair of the Australian ORCID Advisory Committee; Co-Principal Investigator for the NMC Horizon Project’s Technology Outlook: Australian Tertiary Education 2012-2017; and as member of the eResearch Expert Working Group (2011), which developed the 2011 Strategic Roadmap for Australian Research Infrastructure. She is currently a board member of the Queensland Cyber Infrastructure Foundation (QCIF), Open Data Institute Queensland (ODIQ), a member of the Queensland Public Records Review Committee, and Chair of the Council of Australian University Librarians Research Advisory Committee (CRAC). O’Brien has a Master of Public Administration, a Graduate Diploma in Library, Information Science, a Bachelor of Education, and a Corporate Directors Diploma.

Chris Shillum (Second term)

Chris Shillum is currently Vice President of Platform and Data Integration for Elsevier, where he focuses on integrating data resources across silos to enable more personalized services for researchers and building out a new big data platform. Previously, he was responsible for the platform and systems which power online products such as ScienceDirect and Scopus. Shillum has worked in various capacities on Elsevier’s online products including ScienceDirect since its inception in 1997, in areas including contentmanagement, identity and access management, search and analytics. He holds a Masters in Electronic Systems Engineering from the University of York in the UK.


How to get involved in the 2018 Election

In 2018, we will have four Board seats up for election. We encourage all of our members to submit recommendations to the Nominating Committee.  Look for our call for nominations this spring. Please contact us if you are interested in serving on the Nominating Committee.  The Committee charter describes the remit of this group. 

We welcome your feedback! 

This year marks the first time we have held an election open to our full membership; this follows a change in our bylaws voted on by our Board last year at this time. An important part of our ongoing work to ensure we meet our commitment to transparency and sustainability, the new elections process also has been a learning experience, not the least of which was setting up the online voting process from scratch.

After a call for recommendations, The Nominating Committee developed specific guidelines for reviewing nominees to ensure a balance of skills, experience, and regional and sectoral representation on the Board while also meeting bylaws requirements for non-profit majority.  

ORCID staff’s responsibilities included identifying and setting up a reliable online voting system, including clear instructions on how to vote, as well as getting the word out about the nominations and voting processes. This requires up-to-date member contacts and tools to avoid spam filters, so we've spent a lot of time this year improving our member contact information and will be working with you to keep this updated going forward. Complying with legal statute requires offering an in-person voting option, which is challenging given our international membership.  To address this challenge, we held an in-person Member meeting, hosted by Wellcome Trust, augmented by an on-line Webinar.  Robert Kiley and Board Chair Ed Pentz presided, and ORCID staffer Josh Brown by power of attorney submitted the proxy vote on behalf of all members who had voted online. 

We value your feedback on this year's experience, and look forward to your participation in future elections!