Workflow: Peer Review

This workflow sets out a process in which a typical peer review system may integrate with the ORCID API. It gives a walkthrough of the process of receiving validated ORCID iDs from reviewers, adding peer review groups and review activity to ORCID records, and updating review activities which you have previously added to ORCID records. Not every peer review system will fulfil every element of this process—many systems may only collect reviewers’ iDs and display them within your system or in metadata.


Peer review is central to the evaluation of research – not just for journal article publication, but also for conference programming, for awarding grants, and for making hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions. Embedding ORCID iDs into your review workflows can help streamline your processes, improve the management of people databases, and provide recognition for your reviewers. And importantly, you can play your part in building a trusted research information infrastructure by asserting the connection between individuals and their peer review activity.

Peer review items appear on the record like this:

What does a Peer Review item contain?

Peer review items added to ORCID records can contain as much or as little information as the convening organization deems appropriate, depending on whether the review process is open or blinded. In addition to required items (marked * below), the review activity can include any or all of the following:

  • Role:* The individual’s role in the review process, e.g. chair, editor, member, organizer, reviewer
  • Group identifier:* The group ID that is used for aggregation purposes -- for journal articles, the default identifier is the eISSN, which is automatically populated via an integration with the ISSN database 
  • Convening organization*: The organization which organized the review - a journal publisher, conference organizer, funding agency, faculty, etc
    • Organization identifier: The persistent identifier for the convening organization. Whenever possible, this should be a Ringgold, GRID, LEI or Crossref Funder Registry identifier.
  • Review data:* This data refers to the review activity and not what was reviewed
    • Type: The type of review activity, e.g. review, evaluation
    • Date: The date the review was completed. This can be broad (2008) or specific (2010-12-10) 
    • Review identifier: A unique, resolvable identifier provided by the source of the review itself. Unless the review is openly available, we recommend that this does not contain identifiable data that can be traced back to the subject of the review 
  • Review URL: A link to a representation of the review or review record online 
  • Information about the review subject: Whatever the reviewer reviewed


Typically, a peer review workflow will follow the pattern described below, although this can vary depending on the specific use case.  

  1. During the review process, the reviewer is asked to provide their ORCID iD by signing in to their ORCID record or registering a new iD if they don’t already have one. This may be done within the review system (eg a manuscript submission system) or via an email or other message sent directly to the reviewer
  2. The reviewer is asked to authorize (or deny) access for the convening organization to read and update their record
  3. Once the review has been completed, the convening organization (or their service provider, where appropriate) emails the reviewer to thank them for their contribution and may choose to request permission to upload information about this specific review to their ORCID record
  4. Once approval is given, the convening organization/service provider adds information about the review to the Peer Review section of the ORCID record. At a minimum, this information must include the items marked * in the section above, but additional information can be added if wished.The user’s default visibility settings will be applied, but they can amend these as needed for each individual item or for all peer review items on their record

Note, the Peer Review section can only be populated by an ORCID member organization, not by users, \



It is critical that you collect ORCID iDs and obtain permission to read and update ORCID records, by first prompting users to sign into ORCID from within your system, and then retrieving their data from the ORCID Registry using the ORCID API. It is also essential to provide information within your system about why you are collecting ORCID iDs and why this is beneficial to your users.

You must provide a hyperlinked ORCID-branded button for collecting authenticated ORCID iDs: This can be at sign-in, within the researcher’s personal profile, or in a customized email to a researcher. Using an ORCID-branded button consistently helps ensure that researchers associate it with being asked to securely provide their iD, which in turn builds trust in ORCID as a reliable identifier.

Technical documentation


Displaying ORCID iDs clearly signals to your users that your system supports ORCID. It requires you to have collected validated ORCID iDs from researchers as described above in Authenticate. To complete the Display process:

Once a researcher has connected their ORCID iD to your system, publicly display their iD on their profile within your system so that they know that they have successfully connected and asserted their iD. Format the iD as a hyperlinked URI and include the green iD icon, per our iD Display Guidelines. Also include the authenticated iD in any metadata sent to third-party services when applicable.


Making the connection between iDs and review activity builds trust in digital research information. It enables you to make assertions about the connections between your reviewers and their activity, which benefits you, your users, and the community. When a review is submitted, you can use ORCID to assert the contribution by adding an entry to the Peer Review section of your user’s ORCID record with as much or little detail as appropriate. 

It is possible to acknowledge the full range of peer review contributions, from double blind to open. We follow the CASRAI Peer Review Services data profile developed by the Peer Review Services Working Group.  A citation combines three elements: information about the reviewer, about the organization sponsoring the review, and about the review itself. Each of these components involves a persistent identifier: ORCID iD, group identifier, and review identifier.

Adding information to ORCID records involves sending formatted data to the ORCID Registry using the ORCID API, and saving the put code that the ORCID Registry returns for each item. Doing this requires that you have collected both ORCID iDs and update permission as described in Authenticate above.

Technical Documentation


Updating your system to reflect changes in their affiliations or in recognition of other work helps reduce reporting burden and improves data quality.

Synchronize data between your system and ORCID by automatically updating ORCID records and regularly querying the researcher’s ORCID records for any new changes.. (Premium members can register webhooks to receive pings from ORCID when monitored records are updated.)

Be sure to check the last modified date to find the latest information.

Technical Documentation