ORCID is committed to enabling traceable connections between researchers and their activities and affiliations. This includes using identifiers for things (such as DOIs) and places (such as organization identifiers), as well as people. In many cases, however, identifiers are not yet widely used. In some cases, there is not yet an understanding that identifiers are needed.
When we first launched affiliation functionality in 2013 (see Organizational Affiliations Now Part of ORCID Record), our focus was on organization identifiers. These made it possible for us to create an organization pick list for researchers to choose from when adding employment and education affiliation information to their ORCID record. Since then, researchers have used this pick list to make over 5m such assertions, and increasingly their institutions are using the ORCID API to add affiliation information for their own researchers – to date, researchers have given permissions for over 100K such assertions.
However, what about researchers who have more than one affiliation at the same institution, over time or at the same time? In this case, simply connecting a person’s ORCID ID with an organization ID is not enough. And even with additional role metadata, there is no clear way to resolve the affiliation: to find a web page or other independent digital information for that affiliation. Some institutions have faculty and staff profile pages, but by and large these pages are removed when a faculty member moves to a new organization. And let’s not even ask about students, who most often don’t have any online representation hosted by their institution.
As part of our push toward trusted assertions (see Assertion Assurance Pathways: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?), we decided that our new API release candidate (3.0) should require affiliation assertions added to an ORCID record by any source to include either a persistent identifier – which we knew was a stretch – or, what we thought was achievable now, an affiliation start date. Verifying that someone has ever worked at institution X is significantly harder than verifying that they worked at X during a particular time period.
However, thanks to your feedback on our new API release candidate, we now know that, for many in our community, this bar is currently too high. So, by popular request, we are temporarily rolling back the start date/identifier requirement for affiliations in API 3.0. We will be taking time over the next 6-9 months to work with the community to gain a better understanding of your workflows and information sources and to engage with partners to test approaches. If you are interested in working with us on this project, please contact me.
In the meantime, we will be:
- Displaying “date created” for items on the ORCID record and in the API
- Requiring organization IDs for the asserting organization and the affiliation itself
- Ensuring that only those organizations that have a direct relationship with the affiliation may post it to the ORCID record. This means that Institution X may ONLY post affiliations pertaining to their institution. We will be managing this using organization IDs for the asserting organization and the affiliation being posted
- Encouraging (but not requiring) the use of start dates in affiliation assertions
- Encouraging pilot integrations that test use of identifiers for the affiliation
- Encouraging inclusion of a local webpage URL (such as a faculty or staff profile) in the affiliation assertion, preferably in an archived format (see e.g., https://www.webcitation.org)
We look forward to working with our community to improve transparency and trust in affiliation assertions. Please contact us if you have questions or suggestions.Related ORCID posts
- Assertion Assurance Pathways: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
- Building a Robust Research Infrastructure, One PID at a Time
- New Feature Alert: Upgraded Affiliation Types
Earlier this year we announced a new data model to acknowledge research resource use on ORCID records. Now with the launch of the first release candidate of our API 3.0, we introduce a new section to the ORCID record: research resources.
Research resources are specialist resources used for research purposes, and can include anything from research facilities housing specialized equipment (laboratories, observatories, ships, etc.) to digital repositories; and from museums and galleries to field stations that house physical collections. Identifying which resources were used to create research findings improves research rigor and reporting, and increases transparency.
Like peer review activity, resource use can only be added to an ORCID record by a trusted organization (ORCID member organization), following collection of a researcher’s ORCID iD in a formal resource proposal or request process. And like the peer review section, the research resource section will not appear in an ORCID record until a resource connection has been made and added. Organizations that provide resources are invited to join our pilot project to integrate ORCID iDs and other persistent identifiers into resource proposal and award processes. Find out how below.Recognizing resource use on ORCID records
Connecting information to your ORCID record starts with verifying your ORCID iD. In most cases, a resource provider requests that you verify your ORCID iD by signing into ORCID and granting them permission to update your ORCID record with information about your use of their resource. This typically occurs when you submit a request to use a resource or grant access credentials to a resource.
The resource provider uses this permission to connect information about your resource use to your ORCID record. Publicly recognizing the use of research resources in this way benefits you, the organizations you interact with that collect information from your ORCID record, and the resource provider themselves. Each resource item includes persistent identifiers: the organization ID for the resource host and the grant or project ID of the resource, which enable transparency and traceability. The resource provider (the trusted organization) is always listed as the source of the information.
Organizations: Join the research resource pilots
Above is an example resource use recognition from Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, a member of the resource pilot group.
Our User Facilities and Publications Working Group defined two pilot projects: one for resource hosts to adopt ORCID iDs and other persistent identifiers into their resource proposal and award processes; and one for publishers to integrate award and resource identifiers into the publishing process. Connecting resources to ORCID records is a key part of the first pilot project.
We invite members of the ORCID community to test the research resources workflow as a part of our pilot group. Let us know your interest by completing our online form and our team will follow up.
We also invite the community to participate in the pilot project to integrate award and resource identifiers into the publishing process, so resource use can be recognized. Not certain which project is right for your organization? Get in touch with the ORCID Engagement Team to learn more.
For more information, please see:
- The working group’s report
- The research resource data model
- ORCID for research resources webpages
- Pilot project page describing the workflow for resource hosts
- The presentation “Capturing use of research facilities with PIDs” presented by Erin Arndt (Wiley), Laure Haak (ORCID), Crystal Schrof (Oak Ridge National Lab), and Susan White-DePace (Argonne National Lab/Society for Science at User Research Facilities) at PIDapalooza 2018
Earlier this year, the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU) hosted the ORCID Austria workshop in Vienna in cooperation with ORCID and “e-infrastructures Austria Plus”. About 60 participants from 25 Austrian institutions learned about the advantages of ORCID membership and the integration of ORCID iDs into university repositories, CRIS, and personnel systems.
In addition to presentations by ORCID staff, the workshop also included experiences and solutions of other countries and institutions. The presentations from Swiss and German ORCID members provided new perspectives about ORCID integration for institutions, and also rationale for establishing a national consortium. A presentation by Ulrike Krießmann from the Graz University of Technology demonstrated how they collected ORCID iDs from their researchers using their CRIS system. Since many Austrian research institutions are interested in integrating ORCID into their systems as a service for their researchers, the TU Graz example was very important.
Christian Gutknecht of the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), talked about the Swiss experience with ORCID. In 2014, the University of Bern became the first research organization in Switzerland to join ORCID as an organizational member. They were soon followed by a number of other organizations, and there ensued in 2015 a discussion about establishing a Swiss national ORCID consortium. This did not come to pass, as the question of which institution should act as the consortium lead organization was not resolved. Currently, thirteen Swiss institutions – including seven research organizations, two funders and four publishers – are ORCID members.
Gutknecht also presented an update on the ORCID Funder Working Group and the ORBIT project (ORCID Reducing Burden and Improving Transparency), which aims to use persistent identifiers to improve the exchange of information between and within the different funder systems and databases. He noted that, in line with ORCID best practices, the SNSF requests ORCID iDs from their grant applicants. The Austrian national funder FWF (Austrian Science Fund) goes farther and has required ORCID iDs since 2016.
During the roundtable session, meeting participants discussed the possibility of creating an Austrian ORCID consortium and the coordination of such an infrastructure in Austria. The presentation on the German consortium ORCID-DE by Paul Vierkant offered helpful insights and advice. ORCID-DE has obtained funding from DFG for the period 2016-2019 to support this initiative. In addition to setting up a national contact point, and the BASE integration with ORCID, one of the other goals of the ORCID-DE consortium is to integrate ORCID with the GND (Gemeinsame Norm Datei), the international authority file of names managed by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Vierkant also described the legal opinion commissioned by ORCID-DE to analyse ORCID from a data protection aspect. ORCID-DE had 41 members in May 2018, with numerous other institutions interested in joining.New ORCID members in Austria and next steps
The workshop has been an important starting step for connecting stakeholders in the Austrian research community and establishing ORCID as the identifier for researchers. Subsequently, the University of Vienna and the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU) have joined ORCID as institutional members. Both universities plan to soon integrate ORCID into their CRIS systems so that their researchers can connect their iDs. There are now four Austrian ORCID members -- three universities and the FWF. A minimum of five are needed for a national consortium.
In June "e-infrastructures Austria Plus" sent out a questionnaire to all workshop attendees from Austrian institutions about their interest in joining a national ORCID consortium. So far, six institutions have expressed their interest in joining and many more have expressed a general interest in ORCID. “e-infrastructures Austria Plus” will continue to help coordinate the Austrian research institutions and support the formation of an ORCID consortium. A top priority is to identify a consortium lead organization.
We’ll keep you updated on progress!
Anna-Laetitia Hikl is a CRIS Manager at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences - BOKU.Blog
Releasing the annual public data file is a key ORCID principle. The file is a snapshot of all ORCID record data that researchers have marked public, in the ORCID Registry at the time that the file was created on October 1, 2018 -- information that our users have set to be visible to everyone. We publish this file once per year under a CC0 waiver.Get the file
Our 2018 Public Data File can be downloaded from the ORCID repository. This year the file is available in v2.0 of the ORCID API message schema, the default since August 2018. API v2.0 supports quick views of ORCID records using summaries, displaying limited metadata in the activities section (affiliations, funding, works, and peer reviews). To provide all public Registry data, we have included a second file with all public data from each activity section of users’ ORCID records.
Unlike previous data files, the 2018 data file is available only in XML format rather than both XML and JSON. If you prefer JSON, we recommend using our ORCID Conversion Library available in our Github repository.
The converter is a single downloadable Java application and can generate JSON from XML in the default version ORCID message schema format (v2.0 and v2.1). Currently the converter can process only full record XML or the ORCID public data file. The converter is a new project, and we’re always looking for ways to improve it -- let us know your feedback!Let us know how you’re using file
What can you do with the public data file? Your imagination is the limit! Some recent examples: John Bohannon used data from the public data file to track researchers’ global migration in his study “Restless minds” published in Science (May 2017, Vol. 356, Issue 6339), which was awarded the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's 2018 Communication Award for newspapers and magazines. The Digital Research Yearbook created an “ORCID indicator” based on affiliation data in the public data file; the indicator is the proportion of researchers at an institution who have registered for an ORCID iD and connected it to their institution.
A few months ago, we announced the launch of the ORCID in repositories task force. This group, chaired by Michele Mennielli, International Membership and Partnership Manager at DuraSpace, was charged with reviewing and providing feedback on proposed recommendations for supporting ORCID in repository systems. In an unprecedented show of interest, we received over 40 applications from individuals interested in joining the task force.
Gathering input from across the repository community is a key priority for this project. However, due to constraints of time, space, and telecommunications, the size of the task force had to be limited. With diversity a primary driver, 15 members were selected, representing 12 countries (on 6 continents!) and a variety of organization types. Now, after several months of scrutinizing documents and meeting across far-flung timezones, the task force is releasing its Draft recommendation: Supporting ORCID in repository systems for public review and comment.
The recommendation is open for comment through 15 Nov, 2018. You may comment directly in the draft. We invite you to share the document widely with your peers and colleagues who have an interest in the use of ORCID in repositories. You may send us your comments by email to email@example.com if you’d prefer to remain anonymous on the public document. After the comment period, the task force will review the feedback and incorporate it into its final recommendation.
Our goal is to publish the final version of the document in December, 2018, after which we will launch work to incorporate the recommendations into our existing workflow documentation for repositories. In parallel, we look forward to working with the repository community to adopt the recommendations, including informing the work of Projects Governance of open source platforms supported by DuraSpace.
Thank you in advance for your feedback!Blog
I am delighted to announce the slate for ORCID’s 2019 Board election.
We received 25 nominations, and felt strongly that the candidates represented the best of ORCID -- a committed, collaborative community of users. The Nominating Committee is tasked with considering a complex set of potential contributions from nominees, including sector representation, gender, geography, professional expertise, and skills pertinent to Board service. A major thanks to Richard de Gris, Alison Mitchell, and our two external Nominating Committee members, Johanna McEntyre and Paul Vierkant, as well as to the ORCID staff for their support of our work.
After careful consideration, the Nominating Committee unanimously recommended the following candidates to be put forth for election to the ORCID Board, for a term from 2019-2021:
- Richard Ikeda (second term), National Institutes of Health, US
- Veronique Kiermer (second term), PLOS, US
- Robert Kiley (second term), Wellcome Trust, UK
- Shouguang Xie, Social Sciences Academic Press, China
More information about the slate and elections process can be found on our 2019 election page.
All ORCID members in good standing as of October 8, 2018 are eligible to vote. Online voting will be open from November 8 - December 7, 2018, and full instructions will be sent to the official contact at each member organization by November 7, 2018. Members also have the option to propose write-in candidates for the Board within 30 days of the slate being announced (by November 7, 2018) – full information can be found in our bylaws, Section III, Article 2.
In addition to participation on the ORCID Board, the Nominating Committee is working with the ORCID Board and staff to identify other avenues for nominees to formally participate in ORCID’s work. Ongoing initiatives are listed on ORCID’s community webpage, and we look forward to sharing more about new initiatives rolling out in 2019.Blog
About 20 participants from Hong Kong institutions gathered for a round table meeting on September 13, to discuss their experiences of integrating ORCID. Many of the institutions were early adopters of ORCID with much experience to share.
Our Hong Kong members utilize a variety of systems for their integrations, working with research information (CRIS) and repository systems, other vendors, as well as developing their own homegrown solutions to connect their researchers to ORCID and to their university.
Participants in the meeting agreed that the main challenges in implementing ORCID are around adoption, rather than technical implementation - in particular, user education and outreach to researchers and administrators on how and why using ORCID benefits them. A presentation by Janice Chia, Scholarly Communications Librarian of Hong Kong Polytechnic University illustrated some of the ways they are tackling this issue, specifically communicating with researchers experiencing sign-in fatigue. However, past challenges can provide good training for a community undergoing a second integration in the future.
Representatives of the newly formed Hong Kong Access Federation, whose mission is to allow secure and expedited access to institutional digital resources, saw opportunities to leverage eduGAIN services to assist Hong Kong members in simplifying ORCID registration and sharing trusted affiliation information with their researchers. Universities saw this trusted connection workflow as a means to demonstrate time-saving benefits to researchers of registering and using their iD to automate ORCID record updates.
The meeting ended with a discussion about next steps, with participants agreeing to work together to develop a suite of shared ORCID outreach resources, with ORCID providing facilitation support. The ultimate goal is to improve outreach and communication between Hong Kong researchers, their research offices, and the Hong Kong Research Grants Council.
We look forward to working together with stakeholders in Hong Kong to raise awareness of ORCID, and to help researchers and their organizations alike to get the most out of ORCID across the research cycle.
This has been a year of substantial internal change for ORCID. Our transformational grant from the Helmsley Trust ended in March, and we took the opportunity to re-evaluate our programs. This has led to the creation of our new Engagement team, formed by the merger of our previous Membership and Community teams. As of 1 October, this global team - structured by region (Americas; Asia-Pacific; and Europe, Middle East & Africa) - is providing member support, managing user tickets, and helping to build regional communities of practice.
I am pleased to announce that Matthew Buys is leading the Engagement team. Matt started at ORCID in 2015, hired on using Helmsley Trust funding, to lead our membership efforts in Middle East and Africa. He subsequently took on responsibility for Europe and Canada too, and last year was promoted into the position of Membership Director. In his new role, he is leading a team of 12, six of whom have joined ORCID this year. Each team member is responsible for a specific region or set of countries, and for end-to-end support for members and users in those countries.
Matt is supported by three regional Engagement managers: Ana Heredia is leading our Americas team, and new team member Ivo Wijnbergen is leading our EMEA team. For the time being, Matt will serve as interim lead of our entirely new Asia-Pacific team.
As if that were not enough change, at the same time that we were recruiting and onboarding the new team members and training everyone in their new roles, we also moved onto a new support ticketing system in September, and improved how we are handing badging for our Collect and Connect program.
But wait, yes, there IS MORE.
Alice Meadows, who formerly led the Community team, is moving into a new role as our Communications Director. Alice came to ORCID with Matt in the Helmsley class of 2015. She is very much looking forward to moving into a role where she can focus on her first love. She will be responsible for working with our regional teams to establish and implement our communications strategy, ensuring that we remain on message – and that our message is clear and well-articulated.
At the same time, Laura Paglione has recently left us to start in a new role as an independent consultant. Laura was ORCID employee #2 and ever my unfailing #2, leading our technical team until 2016, when she moved into a new role as Director of Strategic Initiatives. Laura has been an invaluable team member, responsible for more things than I can name easily in a short post: developing the look and feel of the ORCID website and Registry, ensuring we have a solid technical infrastructure, leading efforts to define how to cite (and implement citation of) peer review, and establishing our Trust Program, not to mention doing a huge amount of work on our internal information- sharing platforms including SalesForce and our first user ticketing system. I -- and all of us -- will miss her dearly. I am very happy that she will be making time for ORCID in her consultancy. Look for Laura at Identity Management meetings and leading our 2019 project on person citations.
Clearly, 2018 has seen a lot churn at ORCID. We have not had this level of change since 2015 when we doubled our team size. But amid it all, our goal remains the same: to serve our community effectively. Coming up on our sixth anniversary later this month, we are:
- Growing up, getting closer every day to being fully supported by our membership fees. Thank you to everyone for your ongoing support!
- Growing stronger, with close to 1000 members and well over 5m registered users. We foster the development of communities of practice to scale adoption in regional communities, often working with ORCID consortia to do so. Over half our members now participate in these consortia, which are run by locally-supported community managers.
- Growing more connections, both in volume and variety. We have expanded our data model in API v. 3.0 to support more research information use cases for asserting affiliations and exposing the resources that researchers use. We welcome partners to test the new API in our sandbox. Your feedback is essential!
- Continuing to focus on transparency and trust. We are partnering with identifier providers to ensure that these connections are discoverable and support open research. We are working to define concepts and practice around trusted assertions and FAIR persistent identifiers. Look for more on this in the coming months.
- Encouraging the adoption and use of ORCID as a key component of the broader open research information infrastructure. We will soon be launching a partners program for research information platform providers to make it even easier for organizations to use ORCID, regardless of their size or technical capabilities. More on this soon.
We will continue to engage with our community -- here, on social media, and at the events we host and attend -- to ensure we are meeting your needs as ORCID adoption continues to increase. Your comments and suggestions are always welcome.Blog
Enabling transparent and trustworthy connections between researchers and their contributions and affiliations is at the center of ORCID’s mission. This enables researchers to be recognized for the many different types of valuable work they do.
Since last year, we have dedicated a lot of time to expanding organizational affiliations on the ORCID Registry. After gathering community feedback, developing a data model, and testing, we are delighted to announce that our expanded affiliation types are now available on our newly released API 3.0!
With this release, the ORCID Registry now supports seven types of affiliations in four sections:
- Education and (new) qualifications: the formal education relationship between a person and an organization, either in an higher/tertiary education program, a professional or vocational training program, a certification, or a continuing education program.
- Employment: a work relationship between a person and an organization
- Invited positions and distinctions (new): formal relationships outside of employment between a person and an organization, such as a serving as an visiting researcher, an honorary fellow, or being distinguished with an award or honorary degree
- Membership and service (new): membership in an organization, or donation of time or other resources in the service of an organization
Several ORCID members will be helping us to beta test this functionality over the coming months.
Member organizations interested in beta testing the new affiliation types, please contact us!Related blog posts
- Expanding Affiliations in ORCID: An Update
- Assertion Assurance Pathways: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
- Expanding Affiliations: Calling for Community Comment
- Add an education or qualification to your ORCID record
- Add employment information to your ORCID record
- Add an invited position or distinction to your ORCID record
- Add a membership or service to your ORCID record
Research activity tracking, publishing, funding platforms are incorporating ORCID into workflows. Organizations across the research community are using these platforms to enhance data quality and reduce the data entry burden for their users.These platforms also reduce technical barriers for implementing ORCID.
ORCID member organization Digital Measures is one such platform. Used by several ORCID members participating in the US national consortium to manage faculty activity reporting, Digital Measures by Watermark launched the first phase of its ORCID integration this summer. Already, 19 US research institutions have started to use the new ORCID functionality.
Digital Measures by Watermark allows institutions to facilitate collection of activity data from faculty, saving time and duplication of effort for both researchers and research administrators. It is used by more than 400,000 faculty members in over 15 countries to share stories of personal and institutional success. Their ORCID integration streamlines data sharing, enabling the researcher to import their works directly from ORCID -- bringing us closer to achieving our goal of allowing researchers to “Enter Once, Reuse Often”.
"The power of Digital Measures by Watermark lies in illuminating the multitude of important contributions faculty are making to their fields, students, institution and community.” says Kate Kaczmarczik, Product Marketing Manager at Watermark Insights, “With this new ORCID integration we collectively take a big step forward. With a few clicks a faculty member can represent their full body of publications in Digital Measures by Watermark, and faculty and administrators alike can have full confidence in the comprehensiveness and accuracy of that information."
At a recent webinar, members of the Digital Measures by Watermark and ORCID teams explored the value of each of these tools, as well as providing a live demonstration of how they work together. A recording of the webinar and the slides are now available.
For more information about implementing ORCID using Digital Measures by Watermark, please contact us.
This week is a bittersweet one for me. On October 1, I will be changing my status from one of the longest-standing employees of ORCID to being an independent consultant. I am excited to start this new stage in my career, and happy that in this new role I will be continuing to support ORCID in identity management and other projects. I definitely will miss the depth of my current day-to-day involvement, but I’m excited to see how the organization evolves as I step away.
Naturally, I’ve found myself being a bit nostalgic. I remember the website from when I joined in June 2012, before we had our current branding, and were still working with the pilot version of our registry. My first task as Technical Director was to manage the development of the first production version of the Registry. Laure and I set an aggressive four-month (!) timeline to launch the Registry. We cajoled a set of partners whose integrations would launch along with the registry, and we all worked together to build our early membership and technology offering.
The pre-launch ORCID site, September 2012
Launch day was timed to coincide with our 16 October, 2012 Board meeting, in Berlin, Germany. The launch was successful - people found the ORCID site and very enthusiastically started to register - but it also highlighted how sometimes infrastructure is not quite ready for community demand. We selected Rackspace as the “safe choice” to host our website and the Registry database. What we hadn’t realized is that we’d be using their brand new server bank, which hadn’t yet been proven out. On launch day Rackspace had capped our server memory at 1 MB with no ability to scale. As a result, the ORCID site was not available to everyone who wanted to access it. Working across timezones (Berlin to Texas), and on a massive sleep debt, finally at 4PM in Texas (10PM for me in Berlin!) I was able to negotiate a doubling of memory, but it still wasn’t enough! Thankfully the excitement about our launch outweighed the disappointment of spotty access.
Rackspace on launch day - capped at 1MB of memory! October 16, 2012
After the launch, our two-person ORCID team started to grow. I found this picture from March 2013 of our full-team meeting in our “office”. Everyone still works from their own space today, and many early employees are still with ORCID five years later.
The ORCID team, March 2013
By early 2013, the Registry started coming into its own, though it looked a bit different from the way it does today. We had plans to include many items in ORCID records. However, to meet our aggressive schedule, we launched with only the ability to add works. We did a lot of work to identify a community-condoned source of organization identifiers and, by the end of 2013, the Registry also supported user-assertions of employment and education affiliations.
The ORCID Record at launch (screenshot from July 2013)
The new ORCID Record interface. December, 2014
By this time, with over one million iD-holders, and over 150 member organizations, we started to seriously think about ways that we could scale the organization to meet our upcoming demands. In 2015, the generosity of the Leona M and Harry B Helmsley Charitable Trust enabled us to double our staffing, significantly increasing our outreach capacity. As we grew, I also transitioned into a new role, with responsibility to think more deeply about how we should prepare for ORCID’s future. I spearheaded the development of the ORCID Trust program, built our relationships with the Federated Identity Management (FIM) and the OpenPharma communities, and explored possible futures with our Board and community through strategic visioning exercises, which laid the foundation for our 2018 Strategic Plan.
ORCID, you have come such a long way from humble beginnings, and I am so proud to have contributed to your success. I am thrilled that I will have the opportunity to continue my service to you and continue to work with your fantastic community as I take this next step of my journey. And to all of my ORCID teammates, thank you for the memories and the laughs, for welcoming me into your homes in our video calls, introducing me to your families, and being such an important part of the last six years. I look forward to all of our future conversations as our paths continue to cross.
The ORCID Team at annual full-team meeting, August 2017
Organization identifiers are a key component of the ORCID vision – they allow researchers to connect their activities accurately to the organizations where these activities occur. These connections in turn make ORCID data and services richer and more useful for researchers and ORCID members and users in the academic, funding, and publishing sectors.
ORCID has been using organization identifiers since 2013 but, realizing the limitations of solutions available then, we were among those calling for an open organization identifier initiative. In 2015, an Organization ID Working Group, led by a steering group made up of the Executive Directors of Crossref, DataCite, and ORCID was formed. This group developed a set of draft principles for Registry governance and product requirements, which were released for public comments and followed by a stakeholder meeting in January 2018. At least in part due to these collaborative efforts, the landscape of organization identifiers has changed substantially for the better in the last couple of years.
That said, more work is needed. Crossref and DataCite, together with other stakeholders, are moving forward with a proposal for a new entity to launch and manage an open independent organization identifier registry. We are pleased that this effort will be launched shortly and, while we continue to actively support this work, we have decided to not directly participate. Not only do Crossref and DataCite have the initiative well in-hand, we need to focus our limited resources on scaling our services and reaching financial sustainability.
For ORCID, the use case of an open organization identifier registry is rooted in our commitment to use solutions that support our principles of openness and transparency and that meet the needs of our community -- what we are calling FAIR PID practices:
- Openness: including community-led advisory or governance structure
- Long-term persistence guarantees: addressing long term availability of data and tools and APIs including resolution of the identifier
- Sustainable business model: in which existing stakeholders can efficiently participate
- Organizational agency: including choices for organizations to manage their identifier record
ORCID will continue to engage with and support organization identifier providers who strive to meet these open principles.Related articles
- Building a Robust Research Infrastructure, One PID at a Time
- Next Steps for the Organization ID Initiative: Report from the Stakeholder Meeting
- Organization Identifier Project: A Way Forward
- Organization ID RFI: Questions and Answers
- Organization Identifier Working Group: Update
ORCID is maturing out of our start-up phase. As we grow, we need to ensure the scalability of our operations; that’s why we decided to move to another help desk system that better supports our continued growth, and enables us to meet our community’s requirements and to optimize your experience.
In 2017, we handled 30,732 tickets from users and members. We’ve already exceeded that volume this year: we’ve answered over 31,000 tickets by the end of August 2018. We do our best to answer all tickets within two business days. As you can see from the chart below (for 2018 to date), we mostly succeed, thanks to the hard work of a small team of colleagues.
However, with our continued growth in membership (expected to reach over 1,000 shortly) and users (now well over 5.2 million), we need to make some changes in our support system to continue to provide you with the support you need.
For the past few months, I’ve been leading a project to research, evaluate, and implement a new support system, and I’m excited to say that we have completed the transition! I want to thank and recognize all the hard work of my ORCID colleagues, who helped to make this transition possible to create a better experience for you.
Our new system, which went live on September 14, has a number of benefits, including support for multiple languages (which we will be rolling out over the coming months), a better user interface, and improved reporting for making smarter decisions so that we can more easily do what is best for our community, so improving our users’ and members’ satisfaction.
The new system will also allow us to spread the responsibility for answering tickets across more staff, with all members of our newly formed global Engagement Team now responsible for tickets from their own members. Our dedicated User Support Specialist will continue to handle most user tickets, again with support from all Engagement Team members.
Unfortunately, one downside of the transition is that the new system is unable to support URL redirects, meaning that any links to our old Knowledge Base articles no longer work. Anyone using the old links will be taken to one of two pages -- see the screenshot below. We have also created a spreadsheet mapping the old page links to the new ones, so that you can update your web pages accordingly.
We look forward to continuing to provide you with great service in the months and years to come!Blog
Recognizing Reviews for Grant Applications Using ORCID - An Interview with Jason Gush, Royal Society Te Apārangi
Peer review is central to many key research workflows: publications, grant applications, promotion and tenure applications, conference submissions, and more. We are delighted that ORCID member Royal Society Te Apārangi is planning to use ORCID to recognize peer review service for Marsden Fund panel reviewers. Learn more about their progress in this interview with Jason Gush, their Programme Manager for Insights & Evaluation, and watch for more updates in the coming months.
First, please can you tell us a bit about the Royal Society Te Apārangi and the Marsden Fund, and your current integration of ORCID via the New Zealand ORCID Hub?
The Royal Society Te Apārangi is a 150-year old non-governmental organization empowered under an Act of Parliament and responsible for supporting and encouraging scholarship in the sciences and humanities, and encouraging an appreciation and awareness of the same in the New Zealand public. As part of these responsibilities, we’re the home for New Zealand’s national academy, distribute medals and awards for research excellence, administer the New Zealand Journal titles, and act as a fund administrator for government, as well as carrying out a range of promotion, education, and expert advice activities.
The Marsden Fund is the largest of the funds we administer and has been in operation for 24 years. It is now somewhat novel, being both entirely for investigator-initiated research and covering the full gamut of research from the humanities through social sciences, the life sciences, physical sciences, to mathematics and the information sciences. With an annual funding round and success rates typically around 10%, getting a Marsden grant is regarded as carrying a fair degree of prestige.
The Society has had the pleasure of being the lead agency for the New Zealand ORCID Consortium since the Consortium’s launch in 2016. Supported by our government, the consortium is ORCID’s most organizationally diverse and has a goal of representing all of New Zealand’s publicly-funded researchers. The Consortium also supported the development of the New Zealand ORCID Hub to enable our diverse members to interact with ORCID. The Hub is a web application with a simple user interface that allows organizations to read from and write to ORCID records with the record holder’s permission. At present, we are using the Hub to assert affiliations for our staff, funding for grant holders, and have just started looking into how we can properly represent the peer review that’s integral to so much of our operation.
What sort of technical work did the Society undertake to enable peer review recognition in the Hub?
Peer review represented a simple extension of the Hub’s functionality. The main complication was the creation of tools to manage the group id referenced in an ORCID peer review. We’re very fortunate to have an able and dedicated development team at the University of Auckland. Together, Radomirs Cirskis and Roshan Pawar got this up and running with v4 of the Hub which launched in May.
We’re excited that the Royal Society Te Apārangi is the first ORCID member to recognize review contributions for funding. What sort of reviews will be recognized?
The Fund sees around 1,200 expressions of interest a year across a broad range of disciplines. To make assessment practical, the Fund is structured into 10 discipline-based panels. Each panel assesses approximately 120 expressions of interest and selects around 24 to invite to submit a full proposal. Those 24 proposals are sent to a target of three (almost exclusively) international referees for comment. The panels meet again to consider the proposals, referee comments, and the investigator rebuttals, to select the 12 that will be successful.
With referees currently anonymous, the review contributions that we are most interested and able to assert is the service performed by the panellists.
By making peer review recognition available to Marsden Fund Panelists, what are you hoping to accomplish, and what challenges have you faced?
Peer review is such an important part of our processes, so we’re after a clear, clean, and authoritative way of unambiguously asserting that a particular individual has given this service. We’re hoping this is of value to panelists. Given that we’re often approached to confirm that they have served on a panel for other assessment processes, we want to give panelists the ability to share this information themselves.
The socialization of asserting what is already public information therefore is expected to be trivial. Instead, our biggest challenge has been attempting to fit this role into ORCID’s model representation of peer review. Conversely, that model would fit relatively nicely were the Fund, or indeed any of the Society’s processes, to offer referees the opportunity to be open about their identity; however, that is definitely not the case at present.
What approaches did you consider, for example, in terms of recognizing peer reviews versus service affiliation?
Our initial thoughts were to assert these roles in the peer review section of the panelist’s ORCID record, both because we thought we could make it work and, with v2.1 of the ORCID API, this was the only game in town. However, getting to grips with the peer review model showed that this wasn’t really suited to what we wanted to assert, i.e. where an identifiable work is the subject of an identifiable review. After discussions with the ORCID team, we’ve decided instead to wait for v3.0’s service affiliations.
What has the reaction been so far from researchers about the option to have their review work for the Society recognized in their ORCID record?
It is too soon to say as it’s still early days yet. Part of pursuing this was seeking the approval of the Marsden Fund Council which governs the fund, and they have been supportive of both this activity and of funding assertions in ORCID.
What challenges did being the first to work on recognizing peer review in funding pose, and what advice would you give other funders that would like to link and recognize peer review?
Peer review is the newest of the sections of the ORCID record, and, at least in v2.1, is solidly geared around the concept of a reviewer composing a review for a subject on behalf of a review group. As a funder, the challenges were that the subject must be one of ORCID’s work types, while review groups can be one of: publisher; institution; journal; conference; newspaper; newsletter; magazine; or peer review service. Neither really suits a funding organization, where the subject would not be a work but a grant, proposal, or application. The fact that so much of contestable funding review is blinded also makes the strict application of ORCID’s peer review model impractical for us at the moment.
If the Society moved toward open review, or at least more open than currently, the peer review approach would be worth revisiting. For other funders, once ORCID has subject types and organization types which fit, then it is definitely possible if they’re practicing open review; however, service affiliations are looking to be a much more universally applicable approach in the interim.
Looking ahead, is peer review recognition a part of the ORCID roadmap for other New Zealand members using the ORCID Hub?
All major public research funders in New Zealand are part of our consortium, and this is something that they can pursue using the Hub. I’d definitely hope to see this kind of recognition extended to our other funders given the value that we receive from peer reviewers’ service.Blog
ORCID has provided peer review functionality for going on three years. Peer review recognition is part of our broader commitment to improve recognition for all research contributions. It’s something that reviewers feel strongly about too. In Publons’ recently published 2018 Global State of Peer Review survey, 85% of respondents indicated that peer review contributions should be both required and recognized by their institutions; and 83% indicated that greater recognition and career incentives for peer review would have a positive effect on the community.
We continue to improve our peer review functionality based on your feedback. Review activities now group in an ORCID record based on a shared group ID and review identifier, much as works do. If your organization asserts reviews directly on ORCID records and also provides review history to other parties, such as review recognition services, you can share the group ID and review identifier you use to ensure that the review correctly groups on the ORCID record.
A new way to recognize review service
In 2017, we called on the ORCID community to help us expand our affiliations section to better encompass the range of professional activities researchers engage in. The new affiliations are being launched this month in the ORCID record interface and will also be available to ORCID member organizations testing the first release candidate of our API 3.0.
Service, one of the six new affiliations on the ORCID record, recognizes any donation of a researcher’s time, time, money, or other resources to an organization or community, including voluntary work such as being a review editor or participating in a review panel. It can be used in combination with peer review activity to provide a more complete recognition of the total review contribution of a researcher.
Each service affiliation requires information about the service organization, including its organization identifier; and information about the duration of service, including the date it started. We also recommend adding more detail about the organization, such as the name of the journal or panel where the review service was performed, and the role of the reviewer or their title, for example Review Editor or Review Committee Chair.
Users will be able to add information themselves about their service to an organization as a reviewer, review editor, and more, directly in their ORCID record. ORCID member organizations testing API 3.0 will be able to add these service affiliations with their researchers’ permission.Uptake in peer review on ORCID
Now that our API 2.0 is in full use,all ORCID members are able to use the peer review functionality; usage has increased significantly as a result. More than 25 thousand ORCID records now have at least one peer review -- a 133% increase over 2017. And more than 535,500 peer reviews have now been asserted on ORCID records, a 266% increase over the 148,100 reviews posted in 2017. Publons continue to be responsible for the vast majority (512,700), but assertions by other organizations are increasing rapidly. See our chart below for more details and the statistics page for the latest updates:September 2017 September 2018 Number of iDs with peer reviews 10,837 25,210 (+132.63%) Number of peer review items 148,060 535,472 (+261.66%) Visible to everyone 124,709 451,778 Visible to trusted parties 5,660 24,110 Visible to only the user 17,691 59,584 Number of peer review groups 10,108 18,442 (+82.45%) Number of unique DOIs 6,948 12,718 (+83.05%) Top five organizations posting
peer reviews (number of reviews posted)
- Publons (135,752)
- F1000 (7,080)
- American Geophysical Union (4,365)
- eLife (257)
- The Society for Neuroscience (257)
- Publons (512,727)
- F1000 (12,886)
- American Geophysical Union (7,792)
- The Society for Neuroscience (490)
- eLife (413)
Organizations currently asserting reviews directly are predominately using third-party systems, with an even split between F1000’s Open Research platform and eJournalPress. Other systems which currently support peer review assertions directly to ORCID records include Aries Systems’ Editorial Manager and River Valley Technologies’ ReView.
We are delighted to see our community making more use of our peer review functionality and hope to see uptake continue to increase in the coming months and years.Blog
Adoption of ORCID is increasing among institutions, publishers, and funders, as well as researchers – there are now over five million registered users. However, although the number of users is growing steadily, there is a danger that researchers sign up for an ORCID iD, but then fail to make best use of it and of the associated record. Many institutions therefore run advocacy programs and work hard to increase the benefits that ORCID adoption brings their researchers.
Under their Library & Information Science Research Grants scheme, OCLC and ALISE have funded a project at the University of St. Andrews to research ORCID iD uptake and adoption. The Characterizing the Adoption of ORCID iDs project launched in March 2018 and runs through to February 2019. It is based on a pilot study carried out in 2017 that investigated the adoption and use of ORCID iDs by researchers at the University of St. Andrews and identified key use cases and new avenues for advocacy.Looking for case study institutions
The OCLC/ALISE project is currently conducting a survey at three case study organizations and is looking for up to five further case study institutions to participate, by disseminating a 10-minute online survey of all staff and research students at your institution.What are the benefits for organizations taking part?
- You get a ready-made and tested methodology to run the survey at your institution.
- The survey and analysis can be tailored to your institution.
- The survey results can help you with either planning ORCID-related advocacy activities or with evaluating them.
- By collecting data that are comparable to other institutions, you will also be able to see how ORCID iD advocacy, adoption and usage at your institution compares to that at other institutions.
- The project can also serve as a mechanism for exchanging information about good practice between institutions.
The project will present its findings as a final report at presentations in various venues such as the 2019 ALISE Annual Conference. The datasets generated will be published in a suitable repository under a Creative Commons license.How to get involved
If your institution is interested in participating – or if you’d just like to learn more – please contact Alex at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Welcome to the fourth Peer Review Week, which runs from September 10-14. As one of the founding organizations of this annual event in honor of peer review, we are delighted to announce a few of our own celebrations, which we hope you'll enjoy!
The theme of this year's Peer Review Week is Diversity in Review. We welcome all to join the celebrations, and especially organizations outside the publishing community. If you are affiliated with a research funder, a research institution, or other organization, please join us in celebrating how you use and recognize peer review!
This year we're holding two webinars featuring an overview of ORCID’s peer review functionality plus regional community use cases. Our webinar for the Americas/Europe/Middle East/Africa regions kicked off the week. Held today, September 10, we welcomed Liz Allen of F1000, Stephanie Dawson of ScienceOpen, and Joris van Rossum of Digital Science and Brigitte Shull of Cambridge University Press from the Blockchain Peer Review Project to discuss reviews in their community -- we will share the slides and recording later this week. Our webinar for the Asia-Pacific region ends the week. Held September 14, we welcome Jason Gush of the Royal Society Te Apārangi, Kerry Kroffe of PLOS, and Andrew Harrison of Publons to share how they have implemented -- or are planning to implement -- peer review. Registration is free and we strongly encourage you to attend if you're interested in recognizing your reviewers' contributions by connecting their review activities to their ORCID records. We’ll also share the recordings afterwards.
Finally, we will be celebrating Peer Review Week with a series of blog posts: an update on ORCID's peer review functionality and use; an interview with the Royal Society Te Apārangi on their experience implementing peer review; and more!
Need additional resources to jazz up your own Peer Review Week celebrations? This year's Peer Review Week Organizing Committee, including ORCID, has created some great Peer Review Week Event In A Box resources for you to use and adapt. And if you haven't yet done so, please share your plans so that they can be included on the PRW calendar.
As well as the celebrations here at ORCID, many other individuals and organizations globally have organized events and activities for #PeerReviewWeek18, including several ORCID members. Check out this list for more information - and we hope you'll join in by following @PeerRevWeek and the hashtags #PeerReviewWeek18, and #PeerRevDiversityInclusion.Blog
ORCID is proud to be a flourishing “community of communities”. We work with a wide range of organizations across sectors, disciplines, and borders. Our consortia communities are crucial to developing and implementing our roadmap. In August, the ORCID US Community was the first consortia to reach a milestone 100 members. Under the stewardship of LYRASIS as consortia lead organization, ORCID US continues to cultivate new ORCID implementation projects, including their upcoming ORCID webinar featuring many consortium members, resources, and updates (see below for more details).
The ORCID US Community, launched in January, is made up of four regional ORCID consortia that cooperate as a single entity: the Big Ten Academic Alliance (previously CIC); the Greater Western Library Alliance (GWLA) with the previously merged Association of Southeastern Research Libraries (ASERL); LYRASIS; and NorthEast Research Libraries (NERL) with the previously merged Washington Research Library Consortium)(WRLC). Since the launch, LYRASIS has brought on dedicated staff and launched platforms to foster communication and collaboration among its growing list of members.
“We have seen steady growth in membership for the ORCID US Community over the past several months, and we are thrilled to have reached the 100 member milestone!” says Celeste Feather, Senior Director for Licensing and Strategic Partnerships at LYRASIS, “With the creation of dedicated communication channels this summer, including the new ORCID US Community website , member institutions can now easily share knowledge and learn from each other. We look forward to continuing to provide support for this growing community.”ORCID US Community Webinar
On Wednesday, September 12, LYRASIS will host a free webinar featuring updates from consortium community lead, Sheila Rabun. She will be joined by speakers from consortium members Cornell, University of Virginia, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, New York University, and Boston College, who will demonstrate their ORCID integrations and share their experiences of ORCID development and campus engagement. The webinar is open to all, so visit the ORCID US Community site to register!Blog
Engaging with our community -- ORCID members and users, consortia lead organizations, and the wider research community -- is incredibly important to us. It helps us better understand your needs for the ORCID Registry and ensures that we continue to develop new functionality that meets those needs. We’re lucky to have such a diverse and engaged global community and we appreciate all the feedback you share with us - negative as well as positive.
This year, as part of our efforts to collect evidence of ORCID’s value to researchers and their organizations, we’re paying extra attention to your feedback, in several ways:
Experimenting with sentiment analysis. According to Wikipedia: “Generally speaking, sentiment analysis aims to determine the attitude of a speaker, writer, or other subject with respect to some topic or the overall contextual polarity or emotional reaction to a document, interaction, or event.” Since the start of 2018, we’ve been running monthly sentiment analysis reports that characterize mentions of ORCID in social and traditional media as positive, negative, or neutral. These cover mentions of ORCID in all countries and languages, collected via a third-party media monitoring service that we subscribe to. As with any form of algorithm-driven logic, a degree of manual review is needed to identify false negatives and positives, but a few months in we’re pretty confident that we’re getting it mostly right. And the good news is - we are mostly getting it right! Although there’s some variation by month, overall there are many more positive than negative mentions of ORCID in traditional and (especially) social media
Monitoring Twitter more closely. With over 23,000 followers, our Twitter account is a great way of engaging with you, and this year -- in conjunction with the sentiment analysis reporting -- we’ve been keeping a close eye on what you have to say to and about us. As you can see from just this tiny sample of tweets, you’ve shared your ideas, reported problems, given us kudos, and more! We take your tweets seriously. In the past few months, we’ve been working on improvements to our OAuth screen to respond to some concerns raised on Twitter about it not being clear enough; discussing your suggestions for new functionality and new use cases for ORCID, such as conflict of interest statements; and sharing your celebratory tweets in our own presentations and reports.
Surveys, surveys, surveys. One of the best ways to find out what you really think is -- to ask you! Over the past few years, we’ve carried out a couple of community surveys of ORCID users and non-users (in 2015 and 2017), as well as one of our consortia lead organizations (also in 2017). The feedback you gave us has been incredibly valuable, leading, for example, to the development of our Collect & Connect program (intended in part to address your concerns about the lack of consistency in user experience across systems); the publishers ORCID open letter (the vast majority of respondents told us you support organizations requiring iDs); and the launch of our new outreach resources (to address some common misunderstanding reported in the surveys). We’ll shortly be launching our first members survey, to be followed in early 2019 by our next community survey and consortia leads survey. As usual, we’ll be sharing the results here and in our repository.
Thank you for sharing your own ORCID experiences -- good and bad -- and please keep the tweets, comments, suggestions, complaints and kudos coming! We’ll continue to collect the evidence of ORCID’s value and to welcome your input and feedback on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn or at email@example.com.Blog
ORCID is a researcher-centric system that connects people with their activities. These connections are made as researchers interact with a variety of information systems, such as manuscript submission systems, institutional repositories or a grant management systems. This seamless updating of ORCID records is possible because the ORCID members who operate these systems have integrated with the ORCID Registry.
In order to update researcher records, ORCID integrations must provide ORCID with two things - the researcher’s authenticated ORCID iD and their permission to make updates. Authenticating iDs is an essential step in any system that is using ORCID, as it's the only way to ensure that a researcher is reliably connected to their own iD. Until recently, the only way to authenticate a researcher’s ORCID ID and gather the required permissions was via a specific OAuth process.
We’re happy to announce that we have now added support for OpenID Connect (and the implicit OAuth flow!), which opens the door to some exciting integration options for all types of integrations.What are OAuth and OpenID connect?
In lay terms OAuth and OpenID Connect are standard ways of exchanging identity information on the web. Whenever you see a “Sign in with X” button on a website, chances are that it’s using OAuth behind the scenes. OpenID is built on top of OAuth and offers a couple of useful additional features, including sharable ID tokens -- digitally signed objects that can prove a user authenticated to a specific service using ORCID at a specific time.
In technical terms, OpenID Connect 1.0 is a simple identity layer on top of the OAuth 2.0 protocol. It supplements existing OAuth authentication flows and provides information about users to clients in a well-described manner, including a dedicated user information endpoint and digitally signed JSON Web Tokens (JWT) “id tokens”.What is implicit authentication?
Implicit authentication is a lighter-weight variation of OAuth that has a lower barrier to entry - it makes it quicker and easier for organisations to integrate ORCID into their services.
OpenID connect and implicit OAuth are standardised ways of implementing OAuth and sharing information about authenticated users. Here at ORCID we love standards because they are well-tested and make life easier for everyone. The major benefit is that it is now possible to configure services to use ORCID “out of the box”. For example, you can now ask people to log into your Wordpress blog by doing nothing more than configuring a generic OAuth plugin!
These new features have been beta tested by ORCID members, who provided very positive feedback -- the integration process was described by Dr Jason Gush of the ORCID New Zealand Consortium/Royal Society Te Apārangi as “painless”!
For a detailed technical explanation of how to integrate ORCID authentication using these new features please see our OpenID Connect integration documentation. The OpenID Connect core specification may also be useful. Please let us know if you have any specific questions, and don’t forget to share your own use cases with us!