Cadmore media player playing video DEIA & NISO Standards Recording
Video Player
Accessibility
Using forms mode, you can utilize keyboard shortcuts to make usability more efficient.
Space bar will play and pause the video. Pressing escape will close all displays and pressing it again will jump to the end of the player.
You can press A to open the Keyboard Shortcut Dialog which also provides an audio description of the player and all of its features.
Language
1x
Play Speed
Adjust Volume
Transcript
Search
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Re-center
Segments
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Name:
DEIA & NISO Standards Recording
Description:
DEIA & NISO Standards Recording
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/0bd042a5-4c52-449b-81a6-015654ad994b/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_3.jpg
Duration:
T00H25M19S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/0bd042a5-4c52-449b-81a6-015654ad994b
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/0bd042a5-4c52-449b-81a6-015654ad994b/DEIA NISO Standards to support respect and include all indi.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=uyo4MfRTNi0Yu1c%2BmjhTIf72Yw7rcAy0gg5pgcSj%2BQQ%3D&st=2024-11-21T10%3A21%3A27Z&se=2024-11-21T12%3A26%3A27Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-03-06T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
Hello on behalf of myself and my co-presenters, I'd like to welcome you all to our session, DEIA and NISO standards to support, respect and include all individuals.
I'm the moderator for the session. Angela Ecklund. I'm senior thesaurus editor for subject names and works in the MLA International Bibliography. I'm going to pop a few survey links into the chat and we'll share the results during the discussion portion of this session. For the first question, please put a pin on the map to let us know where you're joining us from.
For the second question, what is your own comfort level with DEIA discussions and initiatives? Third, in your opinion, what is your organization's comfort level with DEIA discussions and initiatives? Please note that these surveys are completely anonymous and you can skip adding a screen name to your answers. In 2023, most of us are probably familiar with the acronym DEIA, which stands for diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility.
Today's session will highlight the inclusion of diverse individuals in decision making as it relates to metadata. It is important to remember that diversity is not always visible and some diversity would like to remain as invisible as possible. The issue of post-publication name change in cases of identity change, particularly transgender identity change, presents unique challenges for the academic research community.
Library and research systems are set up to record and preserve history, and that's ideal for most kinds of name changes. But what about when making that history public can present a real and present danger to an individual who is trying to avoid drawing attention to a gender change?
According to the Name Change Policy Working Group, name changes should not draw attention to the gender identity of an author, nor create a clear juxtaposition between the current name and the previous name. Beyond that, there's the issue of inconvenience for authors who are trying to make changes in multiple systems with multiple players involved. And there's a continued necessity for maintenance of these changes.
For this reason, we're motivated to bring together decision makers from academic libraries, library adjacent organizations, and from the publishing world to work together on this. With this in mind, the goals of our presentation are firstly to give updates on work that's already being done, and secondly, to gather information and experiences from you in the field. NISO is interested in what you think are the emerging needs in creating an equitable and inclusive research environment.
So please join us for the discussion portion of the session. We want to hear your experiences and thoughts and we'll be gathering ideas for further initiatives and possibly volunteers who want to work on them. For now, I would like to introduce you to some individuals working in key areas of policy and problem solving relating to DEIA and metadata standards. Rachel Safer is executive publisher of ethics and integrity at Oxford University Press.
She's a council member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is involved in both organizations' DEIA committees, including chairing the COPE working group on post-publication author name changes. Tom Demeranville is - Tom Demeranville is director of product at ORCID and leads a small team responsible for the ongoing evolution of the ORCID registry.
He has years of experience working with persistent identifiers and is also a member of the NISO CRediT Standing Committee. Camille Callison is the University Librarian at the University of the Fraser Valley. Camille is co-leader of the National Indigenous Knowledge and Language Alliance. She is chair of the IFLA Professional Division H, and coordinator of the IEEE Recommended Practice for Provenance of Indigenous Peoples' Data.
She is on the board of directors for the Canadian Research Knowledge Network, and along with Merrilee Proffitt, she's co-leader of the NISO DEIA standards subcommittee. Merrilee Proffitt is a senior manager in OCLC research, providing support to institutions within the OCLC research library partnership. Merrilee is a Fellow of the Society of American Archivists and along with Camille Callison, she is co-leader of the NISO DEIA Standards Subcommittee.
Rachel. Angie, can you just shake your head if you can see my screen? I can see your screen. Looks good. OK thanks, Angie.
I wanted to start by sharing just a little bit of information about the Committee on Publication Ethics or COPE. COPE was founded in 1997 by 3 biomedical journal editors. It was incorporated as a registered charity in the UK in 2006, and it now represents over 12,500 members in over 100 countries and across all disciplines. COPE members are journals, self publish societies, University presses and commercial publishers, universities and other individuals and organizations with an interest in research, integrity and/or publication ethics.
COPE created a formal subcommittee on diversity, equity, inclusivity and accessibility in 2021. And the group really has two purposes. First is to help cope in terms of the organization's own practices, approach and development of DEIA. And second is to formulate and recommend policies and procedures related to research, integrity and publication ethics for our members.
Certainly, there's growing recognition that DEIA is integral to scholarly research integrity and publication ethics, and many members are really seeking to improve their own practices and really to play a positive role in overcoming systemic barriers facing scholars from historically marginalized groups. The subcommittee has already developed a number of different resources that have been developed and are actively being developed by this subcommittee.
The first is a discussion document about DEIA, and it includes some additional recommendations for the promotion of social justice and equality within scholarly publishing. And it also includes some suggestions directed to each of the various stakeholders editors, Editorial boards, reviewers, publishers, researchers and institutions. There's also an editorial piece about diversifying editorial boards.
It covers why journals and publishers diversify their editorial boards, as well as some ideas for how to do so. And ultimately, a diverse editorial board certainly helps to create inclusive peer review processes and to publish content by a wide range of authors from different backgrounds and cultures. There's also been a forum discussion about bias and peer review.
This certainly can have a wide reaching impact as conscious and unconscious biases can prejudice which manuscripts are reviewed and accepted. And the forum discussion also revisited some results from a benchmarking survey that had been done back in 2018 and then highlighted where and how attitudes, policies, practices had evolved in the interim. There are also two working groups. The first is a working group which I lead, which is focused on developing guidance on post publication, author name change requests.
And this group has largely focused on principles. There was an editorial that was published by a number of members of the committee and some big picture principles that I think would be that I commend to all of you to read. And then certainly there was crossover between members of the working group and the work item that was eventually submitted to NISO and later approved by NISO members, which is focused on the consistent implementation of those principles.
There's also a working group developing guidance on historically offensive content. That particular working group is focused on potential courses of action that are available to editors and publishers who are grappling with archival journal content that reflects outdated stereotypes, perpetuates prejudice, and/or employs methodologies based on discriminatory assumptions.
And I could certainly envision crossover between the working group and another potentially eventual NISO work item focused on the consistent implementation of those actions as well. The subcommittee resources also include two webinars which are available on YouTube. The first webinar on DEIA and scholarly research and publishing provides an overview of these resources and goes into a bit more depth on a number of the topics, including on the author name change working group.
And the second is a webinar on driving DEIA and to shape the future of publication ethics. And it really covers some tangible actions that editors and publishers can take, including collecting diversity data and advice on managing allegations of discriminatory behavior. I also want to highlight a few of the excellent resources that are available from COPE members.
First is the RSC, which has been leading a group of 56 publishing organizations which are committed to action on DEIA issues in publishing. So far they focused on establishing standards for collecting diversity data and establishing minimum standards for publishing, such as how to integrate DEIA into activities and strategic plans. A second.
I commend to you the APA Style's bias free language guidelines which are linked there. Third, the member journal Learned Publishing is compiling a forthcoming themed issue again on implementing DEIA initiatives in journals and in the publishers as well. And I also wanted to mention that COPE has adopted C4DISC's joint statement on principles, which includes a few different toolkits for equity as well.
In conclusion, I hope I've given you a brief sense of the work that COPE's DEIA subcommittee is doing, which I really do feel is complementary to NISO those efforts and hopefully to the NISO Plus conference attendees. And if you have feedback, I certainly hope you'll get in touch. Thank you. For that.
I'm the product director over at ORCID, and I'm going to talk to you a little bit today about our perspective on author name change, best practices and the nice working group that has been formed. But we're hoping to kick off shortly. So I think I'll just give a quick background on what ORCID is and does. I think most of your audience will be familiar with, at least in passing.
But what we do is we provide a persistent identifier, a unique identifier for people involved in research and connect it up with things like publications, data sets, affiliations, peer review and funding. And we persist that over time. And we hope that researchers use this as they go through publishing, for example. And by connecting these things together, we save people time when it comes to reporting, for example.
We did this with an ORCID record. So this is kind of a container for CV like information. Like I said, you know, your works, your publications and databases, etc., but also things like your name and your biography that can be in there. And this is completely under the researchers control. The researcher decides what's on there and what is made public. Another systems can pull the information out of ORCID using our APIs and use it within their own systems.
They can authenticate ORCID ideas, but also they can populate their research information systems. They can all populate forms when you're applying for funding or trying to submit an article, that kind of thing. And importantly, they can also push this information back. So if you use your ORCID ID when you're going to publish and then your article was published, what the hope is, is that the publisher or crossref or another similar body will push that information back into the ORCID records with all the metadata about that, that publication, so that you don't have to worry about managing that and that others can then discover that information further down the line.
And ultimately, all these systems share this information together and everyone benefits. And because we're a persistent identifier with sort of name independent, we do have names, we talk about name variants, but the information is connected on an identifier levels. So you've got an ORCID ID, It might be connected with a DOI or a grant ID or something like this, but the name is a piece of metadata attached to that.
The actual connections are made with these identifiers. So in principle, if you change your name, these things remain connected. If they were connected when they were created. So yeah, if you change your name, the ORCID ID remains the same and the DOI grants affiliations, they all remain the same and the links still exist. However, there are a number of problems right in what we do.
Not just ORCID, but everywhere in our scholarly infrastructure. Systems aren't set up to deal very well with name changes. I mean, ORCID is designed so you can change your name. You can represent it in different ways. And we have a number of easy ways of doing that. But these name changes don't propagate right? And workflows and best practices don't exist for systems to exchange the fact the names have changed and we don't know what to do when this happens.
Right so what's missing, I think, is a community group that gets together and works out how do we operationalize the best practice and policy that's emerging? And Rachel mentioned some of it that's been developed already ORCID can't do it alone. None of these infrastructure providers, us, crossref data, So the manuscript submission systems, these research information systems, we can't do this alone.
We all have to get together as a community and decide how to solve this collectively. And we already have the technology. Like I just said, the things should be linked to an identifier level, but we need people to use it properly and in a way that everyone agrees is correct or is set up to match people with our activities. And that will works.
And changing names shouldn't really affect that. So you can help us with this? Well, mainly it's domain experts, people with experience of the issues at hand. People have changed their name for whatever reason. They need their views represented and help us identify better ways of doing things. But we also need standards, experts, people that are in this group now.
We need we need people that are used to defining standards, championing their adoption, and convincing others to adopt them. And then we need a third group, which is kind of the group I'm from, which is the infrastructure type experts. So these are the people that are prepared to implement the things that are recommended by the working group and tease out the requirements so that they're feasible and can actually be put into practice.
Yeah, ORCID and myself in particular are in this group. So what's next? Well, we just need to work together and actually get this done and push it out consistently across scholarly infrastructure. And we're definitely prepared to do our part. It'd be great to see more people interested in the working groups sign up, especially people from the operational side who are actually going to have to make the changes, the technology changes to make this happen.
I mean, the consensus. Right which is where NISO and the group that I'm talking to today really come in. So yeah, I'm very excited to be part of this group. I really hope we can get it going and put something in place that actually will make a big difference to an awful lot of people. So, yeah, thank you. And I'm looking forward to chatting about this after the presentations.
So greetings, all. I'd like to welcome you here today and while we meet in this virtual gathering. I really would appreciate it if we would all take a moment to acknowledge the importance of the lands on which we work and call home. These lands are mostly in North America, are on Indigenous Peoples' lands. At the same time, we recognize that others have been removed and disconnected from their homes by military force or climate change or corporate greed.
I think that one of the things that we have to think about in diversity, equity and inclusion and accessibility is that it's our responsibility to recognize that all of us have benefited from the structures of colonization that we're often used to marginalize indigenous and other peoples, and that we have to recognize that many people are still currently impacted by the effects of colonization, globalization, resource extraction and of course, climate change.
So with that in mind, I think it's important that we move forward to create a culture of inclusion that represents diverse communities and equity among them, and also to lift up others who have accessibility challenges in different areas. And that's really where we talked about bringing together a standard subcommittee of which myself, Camille Callison and Merrilee Proffit are co-chairs of.
And we work together to be able - maybe we can switch the slide - with a number of our team members that have also agreed to come on and work with us that are from the diversity, equity and inclusion and accessibility subcommittee of NISO. So I just want to show our team leaders Lorin Jackson, Ashley wells and Netti Legace, who is from the NISO staff. Rebecca McLeod. We were working with Alice Meadows and we will continue to work with the person who will be taking her position.
Johanssen Obanda and I can't read the other person's name, but also to Marie Stanton. I'm not sure why I can't read Tzviya's name, but I can't read your last name. But I do want to acknowledge that she's part of our committee moving forward. And I'll just go to the next slide. So we have 16 members from five different countries, which countries, consists of librarians, publishers, research infrastructure, service providers and other information communities.
And we are supported by the NISO staff. Our charge has been to champion NISO's DEIA policy, including establishing priorities for identifying assessment criteria and regularly ongoing and reporting on that progress. So this is actually the larger charge from the diversity, equity and inclusion and accessibility committee. The committee will also serve as a resource for the ISO NISO committee providing guidance on DEIA issues and advocating for underrepresented groups.
So we have two subcommittees, the education and events and standards committee. So I'll just turn it over to Merrilee now. Thank you so much, Camille, for giving that overview of NISO's work in this area. So I'm going to dive in and talk a little bit about the group that Camille and I are co-chairing, which is the standard subcommittee. So the standard subcommittee has two faces to it.
One is to help to inform and influence NISO's own work, and the other is to look at existing standards, guidelines, other things of that sort. And I think Rachel's presentation really gave a great overview of the types of resources that we have been looking at. Right so a lot of these documents that we have been looking at are really kind of bridge this area between what might be considered standards, what might be considered guidelines, what might be considered best practices.
So our ultimate goal is to really both to highlight standards work that is going on that relates to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility. But also, as I said, also to help to substantially change NISO's own practices so that we can have more truly inclusive standards, practices and standards themselves that have input from the broadest range of people possible so that we can have a better, better standards world.
So the work to date the group started by combining compiling a list of relevant existing standards guidelines, best practices, et cetera that pertained to diversity, equity and inclusion and accessibility. This is really quite a large list, but also given the range of organizations that NISO supports, it's really quite wide ranging in terms of the audience, the purpose, et cetera of each of these.
So two of our committee members, Johanssen and Lorin, took the responsibility of reviewing these resources and trying to train to make sense of how to sort and present these resources. One of the things in presenting to our group that they found is that these standards are not necessarily implicitly used but are often referenced, and that their sense in analyzing these is that they're viewed as supplementary instead of essential to workflows.
Now, I think and hope that that is changing with increased attention to how important diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility are. But that is part of our charge is to help shift that from something that's kind of an attack on or a nice to have to a must have at the beginning of a process. So before we're able to share these resources, we really need to do some continuing sifting and sense making to identify which documents are core for which audiences.
And this could be sorting things by profession type or a role within organizations such as seniority. These are resources that are particularly important for leaders in an organization, et cetera. So more to come on this topic. And just in closing, we would really love to hear from you if you know of relevant standards or guidelines that are relevant in this area, if you have documents that you are really inspired by or would like to share with the group, we would really love to hear from you and we look forward to our next steps and in sharing more with you in the time to come.
So we very much look forward to the discussion that comes next. Thanks Thank you for joining us for this presentation portion of our session and we hope to see you in the discussion.
Segment:0 .
Hello on behalf of myself and my co-presenters, I'd like to welcome you all to our session, DEIA and NISO standards to support, respect and include all individuals.
I'm the moderator for the session. Angela Ecklund. I'm senior thesaurus editor for subject names and works in the MLA International Bibliography. I'm going to pop a few survey links into the chat and we'll share the results during the discussion portion of this session. For the first question, please put a pin on the map to let us know where you're joining us from.
For the second question, what is your own comfort level with DEIA discussions and initiatives? Third, in your opinion, what is your organization's comfort level with DEIA discussions and initiatives? Please note that these surveys are completely anonymous and you can skip adding a screen name to your answers. In 2023, most of us are probably familiar with the acronym DEIA, which stands for diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility.
Today's session will highlight the inclusion of diverse individuals in decision making as it relates to metadata. It is important to remember that diversity is not always visible and some diversity would like to remain as invisible as possible. The issue of post-publication name change in cases of identity change, particularly transgender identity change, presents unique challenges for the academic research community.
Library and research systems are set up to record and preserve history, and that's ideal for most kinds of name changes. But what about when making that history public can present a real and present danger to an individual who is trying to avoid drawing attention to a gender change?
According to the Name Change Policy Working Group, name changes should not draw attention to the gender identity of an author, nor create a clear juxtaposition between the current name and the previous name. Beyond that, there's the issue of inconvenience for authors who are trying to make changes in multiple systems with multiple players involved. And there's a continued necessity for maintenance of these changes.
For this reason, we're motivated to bring together decision makers from academic libraries, library adjacent organizations, and from the publishing world to work together on this. With this in mind, the goals of our presentation are firstly to give updates on work that's already being done, and secondly, to gather information and experiences from you in the field. NISO is interested in what you think are the emerging needs in creating an equitable and inclusive research environment.
So please join us for the discussion portion of the session. We want to hear your experiences and thoughts and we'll be gathering ideas for further initiatives and possibly volunteers who want to work on them. For now, I would like to introduce you to some individuals working in key areas of policy and problem solving relating to DEIA and metadata standards. Rachel Safer is executive publisher of ethics and integrity at Oxford University Press.
She's a council member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is involved in both organizations' DEIA committees, including chairing the COPE working group on post-publication author name changes. Tom Demeranville is - Tom Demeranville is director of product at ORCID and leads a small team responsible for the ongoing evolution of the ORCID registry.
He has years of experience working with persistent identifiers and is also a member of the NISO CRediT Standing Committee. Camille Callison is the University Librarian at the University of the Fraser Valley. Camille is co-leader of the National Indigenous Knowledge and Language Alliance. She is chair of the IFLA Professional Division H, and coordinator of the IEEE Recommended Practice for Provenance of Indigenous Peoples' Data.
She is on the board of directors for the Canadian Research Knowledge Network, and along with Merrilee Proffitt, she's co-leader of the NISO DEIA standards subcommittee. Merrilee Proffitt is a senior manager in OCLC research, providing support to institutions within the OCLC research library partnership. Merrilee is a Fellow of the Society of American Archivists and along with Camille Callison, she is co-leader of the NISO DEIA Standards Subcommittee.
Rachel. Angie, can you just shake your head if you can see my screen? I can see your screen. Looks good. OK thanks, Angie.
I wanted to start by sharing just a little bit of information about the Committee on Publication Ethics or COPE. COPE was founded in 1997 by 3 biomedical journal editors. It was incorporated as a registered charity in the UK in 2006, and it now represents over 12,500 members in over 100 countries and across all disciplines. COPE members are journals, self publish societies, University presses and commercial publishers, universities and other individuals and organizations with an interest in research, integrity and/or publication ethics.
COPE created a formal subcommittee on diversity, equity, inclusivity and accessibility in 2021. And the group really has two purposes. First is to help cope in terms of the organization's own practices, approach and development of DEIA. And second is to formulate and recommend policies and procedures related to research, integrity and publication ethics for our members.
Certainly, there's growing recognition that DEIA is integral to scholarly research integrity and publication ethics, and many members are really seeking to improve their own practices and really to play a positive role in overcoming systemic barriers facing scholars from historically marginalized groups. The subcommittee has already developed a number of different resources that have been developed and are actively being developed by this subcommittee.
The first is a discussion document about DEIA, and it includes some additional recommendations for the promotion of social justice and equality within scholarly publishing. And it also includes some suggestions directed to each of the various stakeholders editors, Editorial boards, reviewers, publishers, researchers and institutions. There's also an editorial piece about diversifying editorial boards.
It covers why journals and publishers diversify their editorial boards, as well as some ideas for how to do so. And ultimately, a diverse editorial board certainly helps to create inclusive peer review processes and to publish content by a wide range of authors from different backgrounds and cultures. There's also been a forum discussion about bias and peer review.
This certainly can have a wide reaching impact as conscious and unconscious biases can prejudice which manuscripts are reviewed and accepted. And the forum discussion also revisited some results from a benchmarking survey that had been done back in 2018 and then highlighted where and how attitudes, policies, practices had evolved in the interim. There are also two working groups. The first is a working group which I lead, which is focused on developing guidance on post publication, author name change requests.
And this group has largely focused on principles. There was an editorial that was published by a number of members of the committee and some big picture principles that I think would be that I commend to all of you to read. And then certainly there was crossover between members of the working group and the work item that was eventually submitted to NISO and later approved by NISO members, which is focused on the consistent implementation of those principles.
There's also a working group developing guidance on historically offensive content. That particular working group is focused on potential courses of action that are available to editors and publishers who are grappling with archival journal content that reflects outdated stereotypes, perpetuates prejudice, and/or employs methodologies based on discriminatory assumptions.
And I could certainly envision crossover between the working group and another potentially eventual NISO work item focused on the consistent implementation of those actions as well. The subcommittee resources also include two webinars which are available on YouTube. The first webinar on DEIA and scholarly research and publishing provides an overview of these resources and goes into a bit more depth on a number of the topics, including on the author name change working group.
And the second is a webinar on driving DEIA and to shape the future of publication ethics. And it really covers some tangible actions that editors and publishers can take, including collecting diversity data and advice on managing allegations of discriminatory behavior. I also want to highlight a few of the excellent resources that are available from COPE members.
First is the RSC, which has been leading a group of 56 publishing organizations which are committed to action on DEIA issues in publishing. So far they focused on establishing standards for collecting diversity data and establishing minimum standards for publishing, such as how to integrate DEIA into activities and strategic plans. A second.
I commend to you the APA Style's bias free language guidelines which are linked there. Third, the member journal Learned Publishing is compiling a forthcoming themed issue again on implementing DEIA initiatives in journals and in the publishers as well. And I also wanted to mention that COPE has adopted C4DISC's joint statement on principles, which includes a few different toolkits for equity as well.
In conclusion, I hope I've given you a brief sense of the work that COPE's DEIA subcommittee is doing, which I really do feel is complementary to NISO those efforts and hopefully to the NISO Plus conference attendees. And if you have feedback, I certainly hope you'll get in touch. Thank you. For that.
I'm the product director over at ORCID, and I'm going to talk to you a little bit today about our perspective on author name change, best practices and the nice working group that has been formed. But we're hoping to kick off shortly. So I think I'll just give a quick background on what ORCID is and does. I think most of your audience will be familiar with, at least in passing.
But what we do is we provide a persistent identifier, a unique identifier for people involved in research and connect it up with things like publications, data sets, affiliations, peer review and funding. And we persist that over time. And we hope that researchers use this as they go through publishing, for example. And by connecting these things together, we save people time when it comes to reporting, for example.
We did this with an ORCID record. So this is kind of a container for CV like information. Like I said, you know, your works, your publications and databases, etc., but also things like your name and your biography that can be in there. And this is completely under the researchers control. The researcher decides what's on there and what is made public. Another systems can pull the information out of ORCID using our APIs and use it within their own systems.
They can authenticate ORCID ideas, but also they can populate their research information systems. They can all populate forms when you're applying for funding or trying to submit an article, that kind of thing. And importantly, they can also push this information back. So if you use your ORCID ID when you're going to publish and then your article was published, what the hope is, is that the publisher or crossref or another similar body will push that information back into the ORCID records with all the metadata about that, that publication, so that you don't have to worry about managing that and that others can then discover that information further down the line.
And ultimately, all these systems share this information together and everyone benefits. And because we're a persistent identifier with sort of name independent, we do have names, we talk about name variants, but the information is connected on an identifier levels. So you've got an ORCID ID, It might be connected with a DOI or a grant ID or something like this, but the name is a piece of metadata attached to that.
The actual connections are made with these identifiers. So in principle, if you change your name, these things remain connected. If they were connected when they were created. So yeah, if you change your name, the ORCID ID remains the same and the DOI grants affiliations, they all remain the same and the links still exist. However, there are a number of problems right in what we do.
Not just ORCID, but everywhere in our scholarly infrastructure. Systems aren't set up to deal very well with name changes. I mean, ORCID is designed so you can change your name. You can represent it in different ways. And we have a number of easy ways of doing that. But these name changes don't propagate right? And workflows and best practices don't exist for systems to exchange the fact the names have changed and we don't know what to do when this happens.
Right so what's missing, I think, is a community group that gets together and works out how do we operationalize the best practice and policy that's emerging? And Rachel mentioned some of it that's been developed already ORCID can't do it alone. None of these infrastructure providers, us, crossref data, So the manuscript submission systems, these research information systems, we can't do this alone.
We all have to get together as a community and decide how to solve this collectively. And we already have the technology. Like I just said, the things should be linked to an identifier level, but we need people to use it properly and in a way that everyone agrees is correct or is set up to match people with our activities. And that will works.
And changing names shouldn't really affect that. So you can help us with this? Well, mainly it's domain experts, people with experience of the issues at hand. People have changed their name for whatever reason. They need their views represented and help us identify better ways of doing things. But we also need standards, experts, people that are in this group now.
We need we need people that are used to defining standards, championing their adoption, and convincing others to adopt them. And then we need a third group, which is kind of the group I'm from, which is the infrastructure type experts. So these are the people that are prepared to implement the things that are recommended by the working group and tease out the requirements so that they're feasible and can actually be put into practice.
Yeah, ORCID and myself in particular are in this group. So what's next? Well, we just need to work together and actually get this done and push it out consistently across scholarly infrastructure. And we're definitely prepared to do our part. It'd be great to see more people interested in the working groups sign up, especially people from the operational side who are actually going to have to make the changes, the technology changes to make this happen.
I mean, the consensus. Right which is where NISO and the group that I'm talking to today really come in. So yeah, I'm very excited to be part of this group. I really hope we can get it going and put something in place that actually will make a big difference to an awful lot of people. So, yeah, thank you. And I'm looking forward to chatting about this after the presentations.
So greetings, all. I'd like to welcome you here today and while we meet in this virtual gathering. I really would appreciate it if we would all take a moment to acknowledge the importance of the lands on which we work and call home. These lands are mostly in North America, are on Indigenous Peoples' lands. At the same time, we recognize that others have been removed and disconnected from their homes by military force or climate change or corporate greed.
I think that one of the things that we have to think about in diversity, equity and inclusion and accessibility is that it's our responsibility to recognize that all of us have benefited from the structures of colonization that we're often used to marginalize indigenous and other peoples, and that we have to recognize that many people are still currently impacted by the effects of colonization, globalization, resource extraction and of course, climate change.
So with that in mind, I think it's important that we move forward to create a culture of inclusion that represents diverse communities and equity among them, and also to lift up others who have accessibility challenges in different areas. And that's really where we talked about bringing together a standard subcommittee of which myself, Camille Callison and Merrilee Proffit are co-chairs of.
And we work together to be able - maybe we can switch the slide - with a number of our team members that have also agreed to come on and work with us that are from the diversity, equity and inclusion and accessibility subcommittee of NISO. So I just want to show our team leaders Lorin Jackson, Ashley wells and Netti Legace, who is from the NISO staff. Rebecca McLeod. We were working with Alice Meadows and we will continue to work with the person who will be taking her position.
Johanssen Obanda and I can't read the other person's name, but also to Marie Stanton. I'm not sure why I can't read Tzviya's name, but I can't read your last name. But I do want to acknowledge that she's part of our committee moving forward. And I'll just go to the next slide. So we have 16 members from five different countries, which countries, consists of librarians, publishers, research infrastructure, service providers and other information communities.
And we are supported by the NISO staff. Our charge has been to champion NISO's DEIA policy, including establishing priorities for identifying assessment criteria and regularly ongoing and reporting on that progress. So this is actually the larger charge from the diversity, equity and inclusion and accessibility committee. The committee will also serve as a resource for the ISO NISO committee providing guidance on DEIA issues and advocating for underrepresented groups.
So we have two subcommittees, the education and events and standards committee. So I'll just turn it over to Merrilee now. Thank you so much, Camille, for giving that overview of NISO's work in this area. So I'm going to dive in and talk a little bit about the group that Camille and I are co-chairing, which is the standard subcommittee. So the standard subcommittee has two faces to it.
One is to help to inform and influence NISO's own work, and the other is to look at existing standards, guidelines, other things of that sort. And I think Rachel's presentation really gave a great overview of the types of resources that we have been looking at. Right so a lot of these documents that we have been looking at are really kind of bridge this area between what might be considered standards, what might be considered guidelines, what might be considered best practices.
So our ultimate goal is to really both to highlight standards work that is going on that relates to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility. But also, as I said, also to help to substantially change NISO's own practices so that we can have more truly inclusive standards, practices and standards themselves that have input from the broadest range of people possible so that we can have a better, better standards world.
So the work to date the group started by combining compiling a list of relevant existing standards guidelines, best practices, et cetera that pertained to diversity, equity and inclusion and accessibility. This is really quite a large list, but also given the range of organizations that NISO supports, it's really quite wide ranging in terms of the audience, the purpose, et cetera of each of these.
So two of our committee members, Johanssen and Lorin, took the responsibility of reviewing these resources and trying to train to make sense of how to sort and present these resources. One of the things in presenting to our group that they found is that these standards are not necessarily implicitly used but are often referenced, and that their sense in analyzing these is that they're viewed as supplementary instead of essential to workflows.
Now, I think and hope that that is changing with increased attention to how important diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility are. But that is part of our charge is to help shift that from something that's kind of an attack on or a nice to have to a must have at the beginning of a process. So before we're able to share these resources, we really need to do some continuing sifting and sense making to identify which documents are core for which audiences.
And this could be sorting things by profession type or a role within organizations such as seniority. These are resources that are particularly important for leaders in an organization, et cetera. So more to come on this topic. And just in closing, we would really love to hear from you if you know of relevant standards or guidelines that are relevant in this area, if you have documents that you are really inspired by or would like to share with the group, we would really love to hear from you and we look forward to our next steps and in sharing more with you in the time to come.
So we very much look forward to the discussion that comes next. Thanks Thank you for joining us for this presentation portion of our session and we hope to see you in the discussion.
Form Title Download
Transcript
Form Title Bookmark
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Share
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Accessibility and Keyboard Shortcuts
The cadmore media player is a professional video and audio player experience designed to deliver media as well as relevant transcript, segmentation, and metadata. On the screen is a traditional html video player with buttons such as play, pause, forward, captioning, language and play speed selection and more. Adjacent to the video player are generally tabs, one of which shows a scrolling transcript of the video and the other shows any segmentation of the media, sometimes referred to as chapters. At the top of the video is a menu bar containing an Explore button and Tools button. The Explore button allows you to dig deeper into the video by opening up an explore dialog which contains tabs for a visual navigation of the video using thumbnails, an about tab which contains rich metadata about the media, a segments tab which contains further information about the video, and a related tab which contains links to other media related to this media. The tools button opens a menu with options for sharing the media on social media, creating bookmarking links, creating embed codes for your website, generating citations, and more.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts only work while you are in forms mode. By entering forms mode, you will be able to quickly access portions of the media player with single key commands.
Spacebar: Play/Pause Toggle
I: Info Menu,
O: Tools Menu
T: Transcript Tab,
S: Segments Tab
F: Forward 15,
R: Rewind 15
L: Languages,
P: Playspeed
M: Mute Toggle,
V: Volume Bar
N: Video Only Toggle,
B: Full Screen Toggle
C: Captions Toggle
Escape: Closes dialogs and menus / Exits Player
Z: Next Transcript Chapter
X: Previous Transcript Chapter
Q: Next Transcript Paragraph
W: Previous Transcript Paragraph
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Embed Size
-
You Size - Responsive
-
We Size - Responsive
-
Picture Overlay Popup
-
400 x 225
-
512 x 288
-
400 x 700
-
768 x 1024
-
1024 x 512
-
1280 x 608
Form Title Cite
No citation provided.
Info
Segments
Related
Thumbnails
Exit Clip Mode
You have requested to see a portion of the video outside of the clip.
Click OK to switch to the full video or click if you would like to stay inside the clip. You can always go back to the clip with Tools and Clip Mode