ANALYSIS AND NEWS
ORCID PILOT TESTS NUTS AND BOLTS OF UNIVERSITY IMPLEMENTATION
The unique identification of researchers has long been a challenge for those trying to manage and use research information effectively, making it difficult to link publications, data and other research activities to the right researcher, say Verena Weigert and Rob Johnson
O
RCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) emerged as a potential solution that has gained significant traction both in the UK and internationally; it has
been widely endorsed by major UK funders, sector bodies and professional associations representing research management, library and IT staff in higher education (HE). Building this consensus has been an important first step on the way to improving the integration of systems and processes that underpin the research lifecycle through the embedding of ORCID identifiers.
Then, just over a year ago, in a bid to understand how ORCID could work most effectively for UK universities and their researchers, Jisc and the Association of Research Managers and Administrators (ARMA) launched a project in which eight higher education institutions implemented ORCID identifiers in their systems and workflows: we have interviewed stakeholders, monitored universities’ progress and have now published a report that details their experiences, identifies difficulties and successes and suggests some practical first steps for others to follow.
‘There were surprisingly few technical issues with implementation’
Our eight participating HEIs – Aston University, Imperial College London, University of Kent, Northumbria University, University of Oxford, Swansea University, University of Southampton, and the University of York – each took their own approach to implementing ORCID, securing senior management support and employing cross-institutional teams typically involving staff from the library, research offices and IT, with input from HR and legal teams to ensure that any personal data processing was lawful. All eight reported that senior managers were
6 Research Information AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2015
University of Oxford advocates that researchers should obtain their ORCID and link it to the local single sign-on infrastructure
easily persuaded about the benefits and also that there were surprisingly few technical issues with implementation.
How to implement ORCID Several key questions arose during the pilots. For example, should researchers be required by their universities to register for an ORCID identifier and, if so, how and when? Approaches varied: at Northumbria University, first-year postgraduates need to include an ORCID identifier in the university’s student portal e:Vision to receive project approval for their PhD. Continuing students must do so at their annual progression point. The University of York found it valuable to illustrate the degree of institutional support for ORCID via a university policy – its policy on publication of research now requires authors to use a persistent author identifier such as ORCID when submitting author details for a publication, where this option is available. Others, including the University of Oxford, are using a lighter touch and advocate that researchers should obtain their ORCID and link it to the local single sign-on infrastructure. Secondly, should institutions bulk-create
ORCID records for researchers and staff to claim or should researchers take the lead? Findings from the Jisc-ARMA pilot and also
the Sloan Foundation-funded Adoption and Integration Program in the US have shown that there is a trend away from institutional creation of ORCID identifiers. It is now standard ORCID policy to promote a slightly different process called ‘create on demand’ in which the university facilitates the creation of ORCID records and provides a tool for researchers to link their ORCID identifier to a local system. As part of this workflow, an ORCID record is not created and populated with information until a researcher actually clicks on a button in a user interface or email. This approach should avoid unclaimed records, unintended duplicates and issues around consent.
Researcher caution It was often a harder task to convince individual researchers of the advantages of using ORCID identifiers. Confused in part by the ways in which elements of ORCID overlap with aspects of open access (OA) and the Research Excellence Framework (REF), some academics saw it as just another layer of time-consuming bureaucracy, meaning each pilot institution had to invest significant effort in effective communications and ongoing advocacy. Each developed its own communications plan to cope with scepticism and misunderstanding; several noted their belief that ORCID will become an easier sell as take-up increases.
All plan to continue to encourage their researchers to use ORCID identifiers and to implement a sustained programme of advocacy and communications after the end of the pilot. The long-term benefits that they can achieve from ORCID implementation will depend on the extent of its adoption across the sector.
Cost benefit analysis In the meantime, we have undertaken a cost-benefit analysis that will help institutions to make their business case for ORCID
@researchinfo
www.researchinformation.info
Peteri/
Shutterstock.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40