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 email@example.com.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.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!
Yes, it’s back and -- with your support -- it’s going to be better than ever! The third annual PIDapalooza open festival of persistent identifiers will take place at the Griffith Conference Centre, Dublin, Ireland on January 23-24, 2019 - and we hope you’ll join us there!
Hosted, once again, by California Digital Library, Crossref, DataCite, and ORCID, PIDapalooza will follow the same format as past events -- rapid-fire, interactive, 30-60 minute sessions (presentations, discussions, debates, brainstorms, etc.) presented on three stages -- plus main stage attractions, which will be announced shortly. New for this year is an unconference track, as suggested by several attendees last time.
In the meantime, get those creative juices flowing and send us your session PIDeas! What would you like to talk about? Hear about? Learn about? What’s important for your organization and your community and why? What’s working and what’s not? What’s needed and what’s missing? We want to hear from as many PID people as possible! Please use this form to send us your suggestions. The PIDapalooza Festival Committee will review all forms submitted by September 21, 2018 and decide on the lineup by mid-October.
As a reminder, the regular themes are:
- PID myths: Are PIDs better in our minds than in reality? PID stands for Persistent IDentifier, but what does that mean and does such a thing exist?
- PIDs forever - achieving persistence: So many factors affect persistence: mission, oversight, funding, succession, redundancy, governance. Is open infrastructure for scholarly communication the key to achieving persistence?
- PIDs for emerging uses: Long-term identifiers are no longer just for digital objects. We have use cases for people, organizations, vocabulary terms, and more. What additional use cases are you working on?
- Legacy PIDs: There are of thousands of venerable old identifier systems that people want to continue using and bring into the modern data citation ecosystem. How can we manage this effectively?
- Bridging worlds: What would make heterogeneous PID systems 'interoperate' optimally? Would standardized metadata and APIs across PID types solve many of the problems, and if so, how would that be achieved? What about standardized link/relation types?
- PIDagogy: It’s a challenge for those who provide PID services and tools to engage the wider community. How do you teach, learn, persuade, discuss, and improve adoption? What's it mean to build a pedagogy for PIDs?
- PID stories: Which strategies worked? Which strategies failed? Tell us your horror stories! Share your victories!
- Kinds of persistence: What are the frontiers of 'persistence'? We hear lots about fraud prevention with identifiers for scientific reproducibility, but what about data papers promoting PIDs for long-term access to reliably improving objects (software, pre-prints, datasets) or live data feeds?
We’ll be posting more information on the PIDapalooza website over the coming months, as well as keeping you updated on Twitter (@pidapalooza).
In the meantime, what are you waiting for!? Book your place now -- and we also strongly recommend that you book your accommodation early as there are other big conferences in Dublin that week.
PIDapalooza, Dublin, Ireland, January 23-24, 2019 - it’s a date!Blog