Introduction and ORCID overview (N. Miyairi)

Editor's Notes

• #13: ORCID is all about persistent identifiers for people. There are many reasons why people’s names are ambiguous, including multiple versions of your name, name changes, and transliteration (as in this example)
• #16: Only full name and email address is required to register for an ORCID identifier. All other fields are optional. Obviously, the more other data associated with the Identifier, the more it is possible to uniquely identify an individual, in particular when more than one record may have been created for the same individual. This why we encourage users to complement their identifier by entering data into their ORCID Record. Record holders may designate another individual to serve as a proxy to manage their record, or their institution to serve as a delegated manager of their record. Record holders may manage what data are seen by whom, by adjusting privacy settings, and by selecting trusted organizations with whom to share limited access data and/or update the record with information on research activities linked through workflows. Organizations may register and create records for their employee, but unless they specify authority to present data publicly, the record will remain private until claimed by the researcher. And, at all times, the researcher has the ability to change privacy, proxy, and trusted party settings. Field; Group; Activity
• #20: ORCID was formed to address the problem of name ambiguity in scholarly communications.
• #26: National consortia agreements signed with Australia, Denmark, Italy, UK Regional consortia agreements signed with CIC, GWLA, NERL in the US Integrations include multi-platform (eg Elsevier – Scopus, Pure, manuscript submission). Now 10 Search & Link wizards for connecting works to your ORCID record, most recently Redalyc (major Latin American database)
• #34: Interestingly, our recent community survey (~6,000 respondents) indicated substantial support or ORCID mandates.16 Seventy-two percent o respondents agreed or strongly agreed that mandates would beneit the global research community, with 21% neu- tral and only 7% disagreeing or disagreeing strongly. Similarly, between about two-thirds and three quarters o respondents thought it would be useul or their publisher (75%), under, institution (both 67%), or scholarly society (64%) to mandate ORCID.
• #36: This is not a comprehensive list!
• #39: It is the researchers that benefit greatly from ORCID iDs. They can use them throughout their career, and can already use them to distinguish themselves in publications and grants. And many are starting to see the benefits of using ORCID records in outcome tracking. For example, researchers in Portugal who receive federal funding provide their ORCID iD, and benefit from coordinated outcomes reporting by using the ORCID registry as a hub.
• #53: Now, researchers using their identifer when they submit a paper or a dataset can authorize CrossRe or DataCite to ormalize the ORCID identifer-DOI connection when the work is published, and to update their ORCID record. In turn, member systems can be alerted when an ORCID record o interest is updated via the ORCID notifcation API service.15 Auto-update unctionality has the potential to transorm the way researchers manage their scholarly record, reducing the amount o time they have to spend manu- ally keying, connecting, and updating their research inormation.