Videos of the Presentations
The Videos of all the talks and Q&A sessions are now available here
10:00 Welcome and what’s new – Howard Ratner, ORCID Chair (Slides [PPTX 2.55Mb])
Key quote “ORCID will work to support the creation of a permanent, clear and unambiguous record of scholarly communication by enabling reliable attribution of authors and contributors”
Re-statement of the 10 ORCID principles
Various demographics and participant statistics
Illustration of how the Trusted Partners can give more weight to the assertions made in a profile by a researcher by ‘agreeing’ (same_as):
- Only not-for-profit contributor identifier initiative dedicated to an open and global service focused on scholarly communication
- ORCID is backed by a non-profit organization with over 250 participants behind it
- ORCID is backed by many different stakeholders
- Publishers are an important ORCID stakeholder but are just one part
- ORCID is serious about building an open system
- ORCID is the only researcher identifier that is not limited to discipline, institution or geographic area
- ORCID is the one to bridge them all by registering the identifiers of all other relevant standalone services (silos big and small)
10:30 What ORCID already does and will do next – Brian Wilson and Geoff Bilder for the Technical Working Group (Slides [PPTX 3.8Mb])
Development approach, timeline and progress overview
Discussion of the form of ORCIDs as URLs
Overview of what the Query API will provide (non-technical)
Details of the VIVO/ORCID collaboration and code resulting from that.
11:00 Open Q&A on the above
11:30 Cool, but who’s going to pay for that – Craig Van Dyck and Ed Pentz for the Business Working Group (Slides [PPTX 1.19Mb])
Details of the financial models and projections for the ORCID project
Expected cost to institutions, publishers and funders
$2.75 million required as investment capital (to be paid back after the project breaks even)
13:30 ORCID and me: synergies – Each followed by animated discussion with the audience
ORCID and researchers – Cameron Neylon, STFC
Cameron’s key points were:
Without giving researchers total control over their data and their profile, the system will fail. This includes the power to not list works and co-authorship that the researcher does not want to show.
The most authoritative information you have about a researcher, WILL be from the researcher. Not the institution, not the publisher, but the researcher. It is up to them to specify what is ‘true’ or not.
Researchers wanted three things:
- Online profiles that could be used to generate CVs (as maintenance-free as possible) – “It should just know about what articles I publish”
- Tracking and aggregation of non-standard outputs in repositories (eg Data, software). This also relates to an identifier being used as a marker that I can use to say “This is a scholarly output for me” even on non-traditional outputs (eg blog posts)
- And this is the key. Automating and simplifying grant submissions systems but critically manuscript submission systems. That got clearly the most votes, is probably actually the most tractable and offers the most opportunity for immediate traction with researchers.
Provided an overview of DataCite and why it exists (no current convention for citing datasets, attributing impact to them or linking them to the articles which use them)“DataCite is part of ORCID as ORCID is a community, DataCite is about linking all types of scientific content together, and author identification is one of the key issues”DataCite search interface: http://search.datacite.org/uiAn example PANGAEA dataset (NB not the one used in presentation unfortunately): http://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.733100
ORCID and funding agencies – Carlos Morais-Pires, European Commission (Slides [PDF])
Provided the EU context for FP8, and where ORCID and related efforts may fit within the overall strategy, including overarching figures and funding information.
No questions were raised immediately following this talk, but it did give a very good context to the levels of money that the EU is pushing into this area.
ORCID and your university library – Consol Garcia, Biblioteca del Campus del Baix Llobregat (a Prezi which I cannot find online, may be private)
Provided a good illustration of why the ‘first name, last name’ paradigm falls flat for many cultures and languages.
Asked many questions about what ORCID may do to help libraries but also how it could fit within library practices as they currently stand.
[Ben: Fundamentally, it raised more issues about current library practices and its shortfalls than what a global id for researchers could do]
ORCID and your repository – Najko Jahn, Universität Bielefeld
The presentation gave an overview as to the work they had been doing for the past year or more on their repository. They had already begun to tackle the author disambiguation problem, assigning IDs to authors and so on. Librarians suggest which works to attribute to researchers, and the researchers were able to simply confirm or deny that the work was authored by them. They had done so for approximately 300 of their researchers.
The key question he posed at the end was “What would adopting ORCID do for my repository?” which is a perfectly valid question, given the work they had already undertaken to disambiguate. The discussion was slow, but eventually focussed on the difference in scope – their researcher IDs were locally valid without a widely understood API to query about them, and an international ID system would have a global scope, with effort being made so that the API is as simple but useful as possible.
ORCID and your journal – Brian Hole – Ubiquity Press (Prezi presentation)
Talked about how ORCID may work with a small, independent publisher and what made them different from others (publishing by researchers, for researchers)