ORCID’s Historical Community

The ORCID in Peer Review Task Force was active from February 2019 until November 2019. The following information provides historical reference and context of the now inactive task force.

Peer review is a fundamental part of the research life cycle and one that often goes unrecognized. Our peer review functionality enables two forms of recognition—for individual peer review activities and for ongoing peer review service.

Individual peer review activities can only be added by an ORCID member organization—the organizer of the review or evaluation, such as a publisher, society, funder, or research institution, or a third-party review recognition service, such as Publons, which works with review organizers to recognize your reviews. All ORCID members using API 2.0 onward were able to make use of this functionality, and this task force was charged, in part, with addressing some outstanding issues, in particular around group identifiers.

At the onset of this task force, we offered new affiliation types that enabled recognition for ongoing peer review service. The other purpose of this task force was to work through use cases for different sectors—funding, institutional, publishing—with the goal of implementing at least one as an exemplar.

Membership

Joris van Rossum (Digital Science), Netherlands

Liz Allen (F1000), UK

Tony Alves/Dmitri Khodjakov (Aries Systems), USA

Jason Gush (Royal Society Te Apārangi – corresponding member), New Zealand

Chris Heid (Clarivate Analytics/ScholarOne), USA

Sheilagh Molloy (Wellcome Trust), UK

Elizabeth Moylan (Wiley), UK

Andrew Preston (Clarivate/Publons), UK

Imogen Rose (Springer Nature), USA

The ORCID in Publishing Working Group was active until November 1, 2018. The following information provides historical reference and context of the now inactive group.

The publishing community has been an early and enthusiastic supporter of ORCID. Over 50 publishers have signed the open letter requiring ORCID iDs for authors and pledging to adopt our best practices for publishers. More than 2000 publishers include ORCID iDs in their Crossref metadata, and well over 7000 journals request and include iDs in submission and publication. Publishers are also starting to embed ORCID in their books and conference proceedings workflows, and they have been early adopters of our peer review functionality, with more than quarter of a million review items added to ORCID records. Informal publishing platforms like WordPress and Drupal have also added support for ORCID iD collection, and systems that rely on publication metadata have included ORCID iDs as a core data point for search and grouping.

Since this early adoption, there have been many developments at ORCID:

• We launched the Collect & Connect program to ensure broad understanding and adoption of effective ORCID implementation practices across the research community.
• Auto-update of publications to ORCID records (through organizations like Crossref) has greatly reduced effort for authors and increased the amount of publication data attached to ORCID records – one million DOIs added, and counting!
• Work with user facility and research resource providers in concert with publishers has highlighted the benefits of including resource use in publications.
• The ORBIT project raised expectations of including structured funding data in publications.

Scope

Publishing community knowledge and adoption of these developments had  been uneven, so the purpose of this working group was twofold:

1. Increase knowledge and adoption of new ORCID programs and initiatives by the publishing community
2. Increase ways for the publishing community to inform and support existing and new programs and initiatives

We worked with the group to prioritize a set of key projects, including:

• ORCID UI/UX in publishing: What is the best practice for including an ORCID button in publishing systems? Where does it go, and what is the desired user behavior? What is the interface for collecting information from ORCID records and using it in publishing systems? How can we improve the user experience in publishing workflows, including getting new items added to their records? This project will engage members of the community to explore these topics along with a specialist in the field of UI/UX design. The final deliverables will include a set of guidelines, graphical elements, and a promotion program for adopting the findings.
• Third-party systems: Work collaboratively with third-party system providers in publishing to define core ORCID functionality in publication workflows and deliver a largely consistent experience to end users. We subsequently launched the Certified Service Provider program as a means for ORCID to partner with SPs on their use of ORCID and to make product information more accessible to the ORCID community.
• Requiring ORCID at submission: Do all third-party systems support this currently and, if not, how could it be achieved? Can publishers and service providers do more to promote their ORCID requirement to their user base and to widen uptake, including extending it to co-authors?
• The ORCID experience for readers: How can we maximize the visibility and usefulness of ORCID iDs in published content to encourage readers to use the iD as a rich source of information.
• Adopting ORCID – the publishing roadmap: Where do we want to go and how do we get from here to there? What can publishers do now and what will require more time?
  • We built on a draft roadmap, with the goal of engaging a diverse group of organizations in the discussion to ensure it met the needs of publishers in all regions, those that are large and small, commercial and not-for-profit, and across all types and formats of publication.

Governance

The group was chaired by a member of the ORCID Board. To encourage a “safe space” for frank conversations, discussions during meetings and online conversation were kept confidential; meetings and other communications, including document comments, were considered closed. As with other ORCID groups, activity, status and outcomes of the group were shared with the ORCID Board and the group together determined what could and should be shared more broadly with the community.

Working Group Members

Bruce Rosenblum, Inera (US) 

Alison Mitchell, SpringerNature – Chair (UK)

Channing Chai, Social Sciences Academic Press (China)

Chris Heid, Clarivate Analytics (US)

Laura Jose, Oxford University Press (UK)

Andrew Joseph, Wits University Press (South Africa)

Jennifer Kemp, Crossref (US)

Kerry Kroffe, PLOS (US) 

Michael Markie, F1000 (UK) 

Miriam Maus, Wiley (UK) 

Alex Mendonça, SciELO (Brazil)

Claire Rawlinson, BMJ (UK)

The Funder Working Group was active from December 2017 until September  2019. The following information provides historical reference and context of the now inactive group.

Funders are working with ORCID to enhance our data model and third party service integrations ​to broaden connections to the array of research and career ​data usually contained in grant applications, post award reports, and biographies. We established the Funder Working Group (FWG) to formalize these interactions. The group included funders large and small, national and global, government and charity, disciplinary and broad multidisciplinary.

The primary objective of the FWG was to provide expert input on the ORCID Reducing Burden and Improving Transparency (ORBIT) project, with the goal of improving local and global reusability of research and researcher information by describing and testing opportunities for convenience and efficiency gains in grant application and reporting workflows.

In addition to data model requirements, topics for the ORCID FWG included persistent identifiers for grants, interactions with publishers, data sharing workflows, and administrative burden for researchers. Group members had policy, program, and/or technical expertise. The ORCID project team  brought in additional expertise from the persistent identifier and research information community as needed. 

FWG members

• ALS Association (USA)
• Australian Research Council – ARC (Australia)
• Austrian Science Fund – FWF (Austria)
• BBSRC (UK)
• Canadian Institutes of Health Research – CIHR (Canada)
• CONCYTEC (Peru)
• CONICYT (Chile)
• Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPq (Brazil)
• Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – CAPES (Brazil)
• Crossref (UK)
• DataCite (USA)
• Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia – FCT (Portugal)
• Howard Hughes Medical Institute – HHMI (USA)
• Japan Science and Technology Agency – JST (Japan)
• Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment – MBIE (New Zealand)
• National Humanities Alliance – NHA (USA)
• National Research Foundation – NRF (South Africa)
• Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada – NSERC (Canada)
• Science and Technology Development Fund – STDF (Egypt)
• Science Foundation Ireland – SFI (Ireland)
• Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council – SSHRC (Canada)
• Swiss National Science Foundation – SNF (Switzerland)
• US National Institutes of Health – NIH (USA)
• Wellcome Trust (UK)

More information is available in the full Terms of Reference for the ORCID Funder Working Group.

User facilities are specialized government-sponsored research infrastructure available for external use to advance scientific or technical knowledge. Researchers compete for access to these facilities and specialized equipment. However, these awards for facility access are not regularly captured within the scholarly research workflow. This deficiency makes it difficult for the sponsor agencies and host institutions (typically government laboratories) to report on what papers and products result from their use. Our goal in calling together this Working Group was to ascertain what data would help agencies and facilities to map impact, and to determine whether and how ORCID could enable its collection in a manner that increases data capture and reduces reporting burden for stakeholders. See Publications and User Facilities Working Group for information about the membership and activities of this group.

This working group grew out of the Trust feedback group, established in March 2016. The purpose of the group was to provide ongoing feedback on evolving components of the ORCID Trust program and their effectiveness in achieving program objectives related to privacy, data security, and trust.  Feedback was folded into our Trust program and incorporated into our website and other communications. It also informed our technical strategy.

Ambassador program. From 2013 – 2017, ORCID outreach activities were supported by a diverse cadre of energetic institutional and individual Ambassadors who encouraged the adoption of ORCID identifiers locally and globally. From 2018, with a much larger network of supporters, staff, and members, we are moving to a region- and sector-based community of practice approach, driven by our network of partners and consortia. We are extremely grateful to all our ambassadors for their hard work, advocacy, and support.

• Business Steering Group
• Communications Steering Group (formerly the Outreach Steering Group)

• API Working Group (2014)
• Multiple Assertions Working Group (2014)
• Works Metadata Working Group (2013/2014)
• Registry Stability Working Group (2012/2013)
• Launch Working Group (2012)
• Launch Partners Beta Group (2012)

• ORCID in Repositories Task Force (2018/2019) [Report] [blog post]
• Organization Identifier Working Group (2017)
• ORCID in books workflows (2016/2017)
• Displaying iDs in journal articles (2016/2017)
• ORCID Cash Management (2017)
• ORCID Membership and Fees (2017)
• ORCID Privacy Committee (2012)

ORCID was a participant in the ODIN Project, the ORCID and DataCite Interoperability Network, a two-year project that started in September 2012, funded by the European Commission’s ‘Coordination and Support Action’ under the FP7 programme.  Our ODIN partners are innovators in science, information science and the publishing industry and include CERN, the British Library, DataCite, Dryad, arXiv and the Australian National Data Service.

The THOR Project was a 30-month project funded by the European Commission H2020 program.  Our THOR partners included British Library, CERN, EBI/EMBL, DataCite, Dryad, Pangaea, and the Australian National Data Service.