O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

Dansk ORCID seminar 2: Projekt status og nyt om orcid

330 visualizações

Publicada em

23. september afholdtes DEFF projektet Forkskningsdokumentation og -kommunikation sit 2. ORCID seminar på Aarhus Universitet.

Presentation from the 2nd ORCID seminar in the national Danish ORCID project and consortium.

Publicada em: Governo e ONGs
  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

Dansk ORCID seminar 2: Projekt status og nyt om orcid

  1. 1. Seminar 2 Projekt status og nyt om ORCID DEFF Forskningsdokumentation og –kommunikation 23. september 2015 Mikael K. Elbæk @melbaek
  2. 2. ORCID Battle Institutioner ORCID Aalborg Universitet 1514 Aarhus Universitet 198 Copenhagen Business School 75 Danmarks Tekniske Universitet 1035 Kulturministerielle institutioner 12 Københavns Universitet 1150 Professionshøjskolerne 385 Roskilde Universitet 115 Syddansk Universitet 200
  3. 3. Antal ORCIDs per email domain ift. 80 % målet
  4. 4. Knowledge Exchange Workshop on Researcher Identifiers • National ORCID consortium in Italy, 70 Universities and 4 research centres will join as a result, with more to follow. By the end of 2016 at least 80% of Italian researchers (including PhD students and post-docs) will possess an ORCID iD linked to their publications back to 2006. • The Swedish Research Council has made use of an ORCID iD be mandatory in their application system PRISMA, a new version of which is to be released Spring 2016. • In Spain, in a “bottom-up” approach, four large library consortia are adopting ORCID. • In Austria, links have been created between ORCID and the FWF grant management system • Norway is exploring integration with national CRIS. • Portugal has issued a nationwide call for researchers to register with ORCID and PT-CRIS is using ORCID as a hub to connect information.
  5. 5. ORCID og ISNI • ISNI og ORCID er komplementære. – ISNI giver forskeren mulighed for at finde sin offentlige identitet • Information fra ORCID til ISNI udveksles kun hvis det er blevet gjort offentligt af forfatteren. Og information i ORCID kan kun tilføjes eller ændres (af ISNI eller andre) hvis forfatteren har givet en specifik tilladelse. • ORCID er overvejende selvregistrering, mens ISNI skaber poster for forfatterne via indsamling og bearbejdning af data fra offentlige kilder.
  6. 6. Finland • National ORCID koordinator og support • ORCID skal promoveres og integreres i en række systemer • Forskere skal selv registrere deres ORCID, institutioner anfaldes ikke at gøre det på vegne af forskere, dette er af hensyn til finsk lovgivning om person data beskyttelse • En national ”Connect service” som linker ORCID til forskningsinstitutioner. Særligt for institutioner uden CRIS. • Undersøge behovet for et nationalt ORCID medlemskab.
  7. 7. Tyskland • Tyske biblioteker anvender ”Integrated Authority File (GND)” til forfatter identifikation. • Via VIAF bliver GND linket til andre navne autoritetsfiler som ISNI og ORCID. • Dette giver mulighed for at flette publikationslister sammen med de korrekte forfattere. • JuSER central repository for Helmholz –> ORCID • Planer om et ORCID.de insprieret af ORCID.dk med 16 førende tyske institutioner inkl. National biblioteket.
  8. 8. Holland • DAI – Digital Author Identifier (siden 2005) – 73.000 poster/identiter • DAI mappes til ISNI • ISNI foretrækkes af nationalbiblioteket • ISNI integration mellem Narcis og CRIS • ORCID projekt planlægges – Mappe DAI->ISNI->ORCID
  9. 9. Storbritannien • JISC-ARMA ORCID pilot projekt • Juni 2015 annonceredes et national konsortium – Konsortium og prismodel – Netværks og teknisk support – Undersøge muligheder for yderligere integration af ORCID i nationale services • JISC/CASRAI – ISNI+ løsning foretrukket
  10. 10. ORCID pilot • cross organisation teams worked well • early buy in from senior management and early involvement of HR & legal services are important • encourage on-demand creation of ORCID iDs, not bulk creation • technical issues were not a significant hurdle (generally integration with internal systems and processes was achieved) • unexpectedly, convincing researchers was harder than convincing senior managers • implementing ORCID took an average of 290 hours of staff time, at total cost of about £12,500 (one-off cost including 1 year of consortium membership – will be cheaper with national consortium). • http://orcidpilot.jiscinvolve.org/wp/hei-based-projects/
  11. 11. CASRAI/JISC Identifier report • Konkluderede at “ISNI+” løsning var at foretrække: – .. while one single candidate would not fulfil all the [necessary] criteria , it would be useful to separate the infrastructure element (the provision and maintenance of the orgID itself) and the service element (the services offered both to registrants and to end users of the services). The most desirable vision for the future would be for ISNI to emerge as a strong, sustainable and internationally well supported baseline or in their own words “bridging” ID with a few commercial players, and perhaps some non - commercial ones such as the BL and HEFCE, acting as registration agencies and holding crosswalks or equivalence tables to their own IDs.
  12. 12. KE Identificerede udfordringer 1. Adopterings hastighed og opnåelse af kritiskmasse. 2. Metrics 3. Big brother 4. Juridiske aspekter 5. Forklare hvad ORCID er 6. Kvalitetsproblemer for the maksimale ud af både ISNI OG ORCID
  13. 13. Adopterings hastighed og opnåelse af kritiskmasse. • It is generally felt that while many publishers, database and CRIS suppliers have paid lip service to adopting ORCID that generally ORCID is low on the development priority list. • Amongst researchers themselves, there seems to be a shared recognition of the problems of incorrect assignment of research outputs and the ambiguous nature of names etc. but – depending on the use case – it can be difficult to articulate the immediate practical benefit of registration to individual researchers (e.g. as part of create and add within PURE) and also - why they should link their ORCID (e.g. to an institutional profile / or PURE).
  14. 14. Metrics • In the early days of development, it has been useful to highlight the number of ORCIDs and ISNIs claimed/registered, but we need to look for more meaningful metrics for the future. In particular, we should look at: – the amount of links and data/publications attached to an iD; – the number of URLs including links to ORCID iDs; – the number of ORCID iDs that have been enhanced by researchers with links back to institutional systems; – the % of publishers’ new publications which have included or claimed an ORCID. • When looking at metrics from the point of view of personal and institutional performance, we must be careful not to give the impression that their primary purpose is monitoring, otherwise we run into problems including those mentioned below.
  15. 15. Big brother • As well as concerns with metrics mentioned above, there are concerns with the use of ORCID as a key for authorising access to other systems. It was noted that in Finland, the ORCID initiative is unpopular with some researchers as it is coming from the Ministry – researchers feel it’s another requirement imposed on them by the government. This was also a frequent concern raised during UK consultations. The point of researchers claiming their own ORCID iDs is that it is essentially a bottom-up movement to make researchers’ lives easier. If it is taken over by institutions and their different priorities then it may be perceived as just another burden imposed on researchers.
  16. 16. THOR-project • Projektet bygger videre på ODIN (links mellem personer og datasæt) • THOR skal gøre det bæredygtigt • Integrere service omkring ORCID og DataCite og gøre det brugbart og brugervenligt • Et hjørnesten er at forbedre ISNI-ORCID interoperabiliteten og sikre at den underlæggende kode har den rette kvalitet og kan vedligeholdes “What we make will be fully integrated with existing organisations and infrastructures in a sustainable way - we will not come out of the end with kind-of-useful stuff we can't maintain or that requires further project money.”
  17. 17. Nyt om ORCID • Nye features og kommende features – API – Brugergrænsefladen – Metadata roundtrip • Medlemsskabsmodellen • Nationalt konsortium
  18. 18. ARIES Systems: We have workflow (plumbing) problems! o Multiple systems, multiple registrations, multiple sign-on o Messy hand-off from authoring environment to peer review environment o High “friction costs” for APC (Open Access) processing o Plus, plus, plus…
  19. 19. Use Case 1 Multiple systems, multiple registrations, multiple sign-on
  20. 20. More than just a good theory! http://pone.edmgr.com http://gbio.edmgr.com http://search.crossref.org/fundref
  21. 21. In Use! CCC RightsLink for Open Access Springer/BMC In-house Payment System
  22. 22. CReDIT ORCID have been collaborating with Mozilla Science Lab, BioMed Central (BMC), Public Library of Science (PLoS), The Wellcome Trust, and Digital Science, among others, to develop a prototype for assigning badges to individuals based on the contributor role vocabulary developed by Project CRediT earlier this year. Here we share the details of this project, and invite you to participate!
  23. 23. ORCID Brugerundersøgelse • http://orcid.org/blog/2015/08/27 /we-want-know-what-you-think- about-orcid • To help us achieve our mission to solve the name ambiguity problem in research and scholarly communications, we want to find out more about what the community thinks and knows about ORCID. Do you have an ORCID iD and, if so, how do you use it? Is your organization an ORCID member or partner? If not, why not? Why are unique, persistent identifiers important in scholarly communications? Would it help to mandate ORCID? And more...
  24. 24. Kommende konference • ORCID Outreach Meeting & Codefest, November 2015 • November 3-4, San Francisco, USA