ORCID News

Subscribe to ORCID News feed
ORCID RSS Feed
Updated: 26 min 36 sec ago

(ORCID) Pi Day is Coming!

Tue, 21 Feb 2017 - 00:00 UTC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blog

What's So Special About Signing In?

Thu, 16 Feb 2017 - 00:00 UTC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

Blog

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

Mon, 13 Feb 2017 - 22:18 UTC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will this affect the Public API as well? How?

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

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

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

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

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

How long will ORCID continue to support the old API?

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

Anything else we should know about this change?

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

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

Blog

Draft display guidelines for iDs in articles open for comment

Fri, 10 Feb 2017 - 00:00 UTC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blog

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

Wed, 08 Feb 2017 - 16:45 UTC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blog

KoreaMed now provides ORCID Search & Link Wizard!

Wed, 18 Jan 2017 - 00:00 UTC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blog

2016: The Year in Review

Thu, 29 Dec 2016 - 00:00 UTC

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

Sustain

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

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

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

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

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planning for the year to come

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

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

 

Blog

Season's greetings!

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

With thanks to everyone who helped us grow in 2016

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

 

 

 

Blog

ORCID Board Election Results

Sat, 17 Dec 2016 - 12:00 UTC

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

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

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

Patricia Brennan (Second term)

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

Andrew Cormack

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

Richard de Grijs (Researcher)

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

Daniel Hook

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

Linda O’Brien

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

Chris Shillum (Second term)

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

 

How to get involved in the 2018 Election

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

We welcome your feedback! 

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

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

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

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

 

Blog

Three Major Publishers Sign the ORCID Open Letter

Tue, 29 Nov 2016 - 15:55 UTC

In January 2016, eight publishers signed an open letter committing their organizations to requiring ORCID iDs for journal authors. Importantly, they also committed to adopting our best practices when implementing this requirement, to ensure that it would benefit their authors, their organizations, and the wider scholarly community. This includes collecting validated ORCID iDs to ensure the correct iD is associated with the author, displaying iDs in articles to signal support for ORCID, and including ORCID iDs with the metadata sent to Crossref to support auto-update of authors’ ORCID records when their article publishes.

The eight original signatories - AGU, eLife, EMBO, Hindawi, IEEE, PLOS, The Royal Society, and Science journals - were joined by a further 12 publishers in the months that followed, and 10 publishers have now gone live with their ORCID requirement. On November 28, their efforts received a significant boost when two major societies - the American Chemical Society and the Royal Society of Chemistry - and one of the world’s largest scholarly publishers, Wiley, signed the letter.

Explaining their reasons for supporting ORCID in this way, Sarah Tegen, Ph.D., Vice President of Global Editorial & Author Services at ACS Publications, said: “We are pleased now to align with the Royal Society of Chemistry in this endeavor, as both societies underscore our willingness not only to encourage and assist our respective authors in establishing their unique ORCID profiles, but also to help tackle the broader challenge of researcher name disambiguation in the scholarly literature. With the integration of author ORCID iDs in our publishing workflows, we will ensure that researchers receive proper credit for their accomplishments.”

Emma Wilson, Ph.D., Director of Publishing at the Royal Society of Chemistry added: “ORCID can and will make a huge difference to our authors’ ability to gain full credit for their work. A unified system that integrates and links research-related information with accurate and timely linkage to the publishing output of authors has the potential to simplify and speed up their grant applications — something we know is important to researchers.”

Judy Verses, Executive Vice President, Research at Wiley, the largest publisher to sign the open letter to date, noted that: “our action to require ORCID iDs is an example of our commitment to improving the management of research data by resolving name ambiguity among the research community. We will continue to consult with society partners to expand adoption across our titles and hope that other publishers will follow our lead.”

While this is an initiative that is very much driven by the publishing community, ORCID’s Executive Director Laure Haak warmly welcomed the three organizations as Open Letter signatories: “The growing use of ORCID by scholarly associations and publishers contributes to building a trusted framework for discoverability and supports researchers ability to easily share their work.”  

You can read ACS/RSC and Wiley's announcements here and here.

Stop press! Wellcome Open Research has also signed the open letter, and have been requiring ORCID iDs for authors since November 16.

We will be reporting more fully on the open letter to mark its first anniversary in January, including feedback from the publishers who have gone live with their ORCID requirement and researchers who are using the auto-update service.

Blog

If I Throw You an ORCID, Will You Catch It?

Wed, 23 Nov 2016 - 00:00 UTC

In many ways, these closing words to Simon Porter’s plenary session at PIDapalooza 2016 captured both the spirit and the underlying theme of this first-ever event: playful, yet purposeful.

The impetus behind PIDapalooza, which took place on November 9-10 in Reykjavik, Iceland, was the need for collaboration between the parties that develop, maintain, and use persistent identifiers (PIDs). This in turn is being driven by an increasing recognition for the importance of PIDs in digital research infrastructures.  And it was also – despite the geek factor that goes with gathering 120 or so people from around the world to talk persistent identifiers – a lot of fun!

Carly Strasser’s (Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation) wrap-up plenary epitomized the vibe with a combination of tributes to classic Lollapalooza acts – from the Ramones to Jane’s Addiction – and a thoughtful summary of key conference themes, official and unofficial.  For these, she picked out granularity, our “addiction” to identifying things, learning, user outreach, interoperability, ideal versus reality, and responsibilities.

To Carly’s point about our addiction to identifying things, several sessions focused on different types of persistent identifier, whether already in use or yet to be developed, such as IDs for projects, protocols, and equipment. This generated some energetic conversations – after all, just because something can have an identifier doesn’t necessarily mean it should… Plenary speaker Jonathan Clark of the International DOI Foundation had some useful thoughts on this topic, and concluded that actually the main challenge to identifier adoption and use is social not technical.

Variations on this theme – which fall under Carly’s topics of user outreach and learning - cropped up again and again throughout the meeting. Developing a strong and consistent message about the value of persistent identifiers, and getting that message out – to research institutions, funders, publishers, associations, and other research organizations, and above all to researchers themselves – is a big challenge for us all. Crossref, DataCite, and ORCID collaborated to run a curriculum session, out of which we plan to create a suite of resources for researchers. Other sessions looked at ways to engage with researchers, encourage adoption and use of identifiers, and build a community of practice.

In Simon Porter’s (Digital Science) talk on research information citizenship, he urged us to recognize the parts we each play in how we develop, maintain, and use PIDs and – critically – how we engage with each other and with our researcher communities. This also chimes well with ORCID’s Collect & Connect program, which is intended to clarify individual and  sector responsibilities with regard to ORCID implementation and use.

Another plenary speaker, Clifford Tatum, argued that identifier portability is every bit as important as interoperability -  in particular as a way of addressing what he called the “interoperability dilemma”. This, he described as a tension between the desire for open science and the need to balance this with privacy, security, and commercial concerns for some data, such as those gathered from human subjects including faculty, staff, and students. Identifier standards and protocols can help to ensure privacy is respected, data provenance is clear, and interoperability between systems is enabled. Meanwhile, Herbert van de Sompel pointed out that PIDs need to be actually used in order to achieve their intended persistence. This makes the lack of working identifiers - for example due to reference rot - a major problem. His proposed solution is a signposting pattern for PIDs.

Despite - or perhaps because of! - being the penultimate session of the meeting, the hour-long discussion of organization identifiers surfaced a variety of views on the topic. ORCID, together with Crossref and DataCite, is convening a community working group to develop recommendations for establishing a robust, sustainable, community governed, open organizational identifier system. As previously announced on the ORCID blog, feedback to the working documents closed on November 21, but we will keep you updated on progress and welcome your input and comments.

There were many more great sessions at PIDapalooza on topics as diverse as measuring PID adoption, ethics, and data sharing. While we can’t cover them all here, we encourage you to take a look at the presentations, which are freely available on Figshare.

Although not explicitly called out as a theme - official or otherwise – collaboration underpinned PIDapalooza.  The event provided an opportunity to hash through a lot of questions and start discussions about practical options.  The weather may have been gloomy and the beer expensive, but the conversations were meaty, the food was excellent and, when asked if we should do it again next year, all hands were raised.  So let’s see how much progress we can make before PIDapalooza 2017!

Blog

All About #ORCID16DC

Mon, 14 Nov 2016 - 00:00 UTC

Our 5 October Outreach Meeting at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) office in Washington, DC was themed “Research without borders.”  Over 150 people joined us, to explore applications of ORCID across the research landscape. Unsurprisingly, given the location, this included many attendees from scholarly and professional associations and federal funding agencies, as well as research managers and administrators, librarians, foundations, vendors, publishers, and researchers.

The meeting kicked off with a keynote by Marcia McNutt, formerly  editor-in-chief of AAAS and now president of the US National Academy of Sciences, who spoke about the importance of widespread ORCID adoption, and in particular its relevance in promoting research integrity. Next up was the ORCID team, with an overview of 2016 achievements – ORCID is now adopted nationally in 11 countries! - and our plans for 2017.  

In the lightning demo sessions, attendees got to see how ORCID is being used “in the wild”. Nine new ORCID integrations were on show from the American Geophysical Union, Digital Science/UberResearch, CHORUS, ProQuest/Pivot, Open Journal Systems, Redalyc, eJournal Press, Convey, and Editage - a great range that really demonstrate the breadth and depth of ORCID adoption in the research community. Attendees also got a sneak preview of one of the first three ORCID how-to videos that we will be launching shortly – more on our blog soon!

Over lunch, we experimented for the first time with topic tables – small group conversations led by one of our program committee members. Topics included ORCID in physical sciences, humanities and social sciences, or life sciences; ORCID consortia; ORCID in publishing, funding, or research institutions/scholarly associations.  Look out for more topic tables at future meetings.

Our two afternoon parallel sessions focused on communications and technology, two areas that are critical to ORCID's success. The communications group worked on developing an ORCID elevator pitch, got tips on successful community engagement and outreach from Bob Conrad (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), Jane Holmquist (Princeton University), and Heath Marks (Australian Access Federation), and enjoyed a lively quiz-style ORCID myth-busting session. We’ll be publishing the questions they were asked, together with the answers, in a future blog post. Over in the technology session, attendees heard all about our new API v. 2.0 and learned about the most common ORCID API perks and pitfalls that our technology team encounters. Again, more on these shortly.

The last session of the day – and one of the highlights – was an informal panel discussion on Why ORCID? Chaired brilliantly by Amanda Wilson of the US Department of Transportation, the panelists were Benjamin Brown (Department of Energy), Mohammad Asadilari (University of British Columbia), Michael Savelli (AAAS), and Christine Stamison (NorthEastern Research Libraries consortium).  It was a lively and enjoyable discussion, with lots of audience participation, including more comments on the critical need for stakeholder buy-in  – especially among researchers. Although reducing their admin burden is a significant benefit, we need to develop a wider value proposition about how ORCID can help researchers.  More transparency around how the research infrastructure works, and ORCID’s role in it, will help.

Last but not least, everyone enjoyed more networking over cocktails - the perfect end to a meeting that, for us at ORCID, was all about engaging with you, our community.

Special thanks to our speakers, our sponsors, and our program committee!

 

 

Blog