Persistent Identifiers Connect a Scholarly Record with Many Versions – Association of Research Libraries

“When publishers speak about linked research and scholarship only in terms of the market transition to open access, it is an inherently limiting view of scholarly research. In this context, concern for the version of record reflects a business interest, not a scholarly value. As a stewardship strategy, insisting on only publisher-hosted versions of record does not align with a modern research workflow inclusive of multiple tools and potential repositories. Recently, a number of publishers have expressed the “version of record” concern with regards to the PlanS “Rights Retention Strategy.” Yet, as was pointed out in the response by cOAlition S, establishing and maintaining relationships to other versions of articles or research assets has already been shown to be successful in disciplinary and scholarly communities.

Whereas the published, printed version of the research article was once the authoritative source of research, new modes of publishing and the publishing of other research outputs (postprints, protocols, data, code, etc.) have made the term “version of record” all but irrelevant. The scholarly communications landscape has already moved into what Herbert Van de Sompel, Bianca Kramer, and Jeroen Bosman call a “record of versions,” where persistent identifiers (PIDs) enhance the discoverability and linking of research outputs regardless of where those outputs are housed….

The continued insistence on “version of record”—including using the VOR date instead of the issue date to calculate journal impact factors—is also a subtle attempt by some commercial publishers to continue to exert control over the entire scholarly communications ecosystem and to be seen as sole authorities or stewards of research publishing. Thus, there is a pressing need to shift the dialogue from a single “version of record” to a “record of versions” that encompasses multiple versions and outputs, and makes room for a more diverse and inclusive publishing environment….”

Launching an Institutional ORCID Initiative at Florida State University | Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship

Abstract:  This article provides a case study about an institutional ORCID initiative at Florida State University. The authors describe how they launched the initiative with minimal resources and staff time at their disposal. The authors also describe specific strategies that can be replicated at other institutions, including identifying the right partners and most compelling use cases, and taking advantage of high-impact outreach strategies that provide the most exposure for the least time invested. 

 

10M ORCID iDs! | ORCID

“At the end of 2012, just three months after we launched the ORCID registry, we were thrilled to be able to share that nearly 50,000 researchers had already registered for an iD. Ten months after that, we celebrated the ORCID record growing to nearly 250,000 (with 80 Members!) All told, it took us just a little over two years to grow to 1,000,000 iDs, and nine months after that, in 2015, we hit 1.5 million iDs. 

Since 2015 we’ve been steadily growing and exceeding even our own high expectations:

In 2015, the record grew by 788,650 records,
In 2016, by 1,068,295,
In 2017, 1,388,796,
In 2018, it grew by 1,585,851,
In 2019, by 2,006,672, and
In 2020 (so far), it’s grown by 2,293,631! 

And just last week ORCID hit another major milestone: 10 million registered ORCID iDs! …”

ISA 10 years: An Open Science journey from publications to data | Affair(e)s in Science

“Part of reimagining of the research ecosystem means the publication is not the only important output of research. What about the datasets unpinning the publications, the software and other outputs? What about getting credit for producing and sharing those outputs? A research data management policy was in its early stages of development at the CRG and my time with publications had come to an end. I said goodbye to ISA with a heavy heart and travelled deeper into the depths of the open infrastructure supporting data sharing.

I have now been working with DataCite for 2 years. I am the support manager, which means I spend time helping librarians with metadata problems and reporting bugs, as well as organizing meetings and writing documentation. I work with the community engagement team, the data community being the backbone of our organization.

DataCite is a DOI registration agency. I didn’t know much about DOIs when I started working for them, now maybe I know too much. A DOI (Digital Object Identifier) is a type of persistent identifier (PID). They are used to uniquely identify “stuff” for example: publications (Crossref DOIs), datasets (DataCite DOIs), researchers (ORCIDs) and research institutions (RoR). We sometimes joke, in a very nerdy way, about other types of things that could have identifiers. There is already a move to have them for conferences, samples and instruments. DOIs are always accompanied by metadata. Some basic examples of metadata would be the “title”, “publisher” and “date” of the content being shared.

We work primarily with repositories (some well known generalist repositories are Zenodo and Figshare) to assign DOIs to research outputs. Assigning a DOI and the accompanying metadata means that the research outputs in these repositories can be discovered, cited and tracked. It makes data FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). There is no doubt that data sharing and citation are an essential part of moving towards a better research ecosystem. But getting this to happen takes time and effort. It involves changing practices – like actually citing the underlying data in research articles – and much more work lies ahead. DataCite works primarily with nonprofit organizations, but partnerships with for-profits open up new possibilities. There is no good and evil in this church. We must strive for openness, trust and transparency, there is no time to waste….”

CHORUS and DataCite sign MOU to advance linking and discoverability – CHORUS

“CHORUS and DataCite have signed a two-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to coordinate efforts to adopt identifiers and standards to manage access to and reporting of research outputs.

Authoritative connections between researchers and their works, funding sources, and affiliations, are essential for delivering public access to scholarly content. As not-for-profit organizations engaged in supporting discoverability in scholarly communications, both DataCite and CHORUS have an important contribution to make creating and supporting these links.

The organizations commit to dialog and cooperation on the following topics:

Supporting simple and non-ambiguous links between datasets, researchers and their funding
Displaying links between CHORUS content and DataCite DOIs in the CHORUS dashboards and reports
Building awareness of DataCite services among funding agency researchers and administrators
Encouraging the use of persistent identifiers for researchers and organizations to support public access to research works …”

A Warm Welcome for ORCID’s New Executive Director, Chris Shillum | ORCID

“JP: How do you see open scholarly infrastructure developing in the next few years?

CS: There are a number of fairly well-established open scholarly infrastructure organizations such as Crossref, ORCID, and DataCite, and we definitely need to look at how we can work more effectively together to deliver what I might call joined-up capabilities and joined-up experiences to our mutual users and members. So I think that’s one thing I’d like to see developed. But there are also lots of gaps.

We know that there’s huge interest in enabling scholars to represent their work in ways that are challenging because there still aren’t identifiers for every kind of research output, and there aren’t good taxonomies of every kind of contribution that research has made. I don’t necessarily think it’s ORCID’s role to take all of that on, but we can work with our fellow scholarly infrastructure initiatives to lay the path for other groups to come along and benefit from our collective experience. …

So I was involved in a set of very early discussions which led to the RA21 recommendations, and then in turn to SeamlessAccess, which is all about applying modern authentication technology to ease the problems researchers face with access to resources that their institutions have provided for them. This has a close tie-in with ORCID and CrossRef because it’s ultimately about getting some of these barriers out of the way so researchers can focus on doing the research without having to struggle with systems that aren’t joined up properly. Most recently, I’ve been working on an initiative called GetFTR which is about improving the user journey between all manner of tools and content discovery systems and authoritative published content. 

I guess some people might say that these problems will diminish with the move to Open Access, but if you look at SeamlessAccess, it’s about improving access to many kinds of resources that researchers need and their institutions have to vouch that they should have access to, like shared research infrastructure and research collaboration tools. We know from researchers themselves that they really appreciate a lot less hassle dealing with usernames and passwords and access control, for all kinds of resources. So that’s really what SeamlessAccess is all about. It’s not done yet, but we’ve made some good progress in starting to solve that problem and make it easier….

But I think the most difficult and most satisfying milestone which kind of coincided with when I left the Board was when ORCID finally got to sustainability and financial break-even. The most challenging thing over the past decade has been finding a model that enabled us to provide a vast majority of ORCID services freely and openly, yet with enough support to sustain the organization. It’s so easy to underestimate just how difficult that is in the world of open infrastructure, and it was a great achievement for everyone—for the team, for founding Executive Director Laure Haak, and the Board to eventually get to that point after almost 10 years….”

There’s A PID For That! Next Steps in Establishing a National PID Strategy – Jisc scholarly communications

“A stakeholder group was therefore formed earlier this year, with representatives from all disciplines and sectors — funders, HEIs, infrastructure providers, libraries, publishers, researchers, research managers, and more. At an initial meeting of this group in April, participants discussed the five persistent identifiers (PIDs) that have been deemed high priority for improving access to UK research. These are ORCID iDs for people, Crossref and DataCite DOIs for outputs, Crossref grant DOIs, ROR identifiers for organisations, and RAiDs for projects.  This was followed by five focus group meetings during May and June, each focused on one of the priority PIDs….”

New Report Provides Recommendations for Effective Data Practices Based on National Science Foundation Research Enterprise Convening – Association of Research Libraries

“Today a group of research library and higher education leadership associations released Implementing Effective Data Practices: Stakeholder Recommendations for Collaborative Research Support. In this new report, experts from library, research, and scientific communities provide key recommendations for effective data practices to support a more open research ecosystem. In December 2019, an invitational conference was convened by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), the California Digital Library (CDL), the Association of American Universities (AAU), and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU). The conference was sponsored by the US National Science Foundation (NSF).

The conference focused on designing guidelines for (1) using persistent identifiers (PIDs) for data sets, and (2) creating machine-readable data management plans (DMPs), two data practices that were recommended by NSF. Professor Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, of Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University, designed and facilitated the convening with the project team….”
http://openaccess.cmb.med.rug.nl/?cat=5321
openaccess.cmb.med.rug.nl
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-10
422114
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:K3QOHAD4N63KUS2ZKYNCEYV6WZXAMB7T
<urn:uuid:76604718-8a69-4769-8280-cd62d295fbb6>
2021-03-09T04:44:17Z
129.125.2.210
text/html
sha1:53GIH5CM3KL2BV3HU54ZOGDG5ICG4EPX
<urn:uuid:4ac973b1-3add-4f07-8230-3e46b17943fe>
http://openaccess.cmb.med.rug.nl/?cat=5321
response
<urn:uuid:b3217630-7e44-4f23-ae98-d99d071c8095>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-10
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for February/March 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-5.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/