Name:
UseOfORCID,ISNI,AndOtherIdentifiersForPublic-FacingScholarshipWithAFocusOnHumanities
Description:
UseOfORCID,ISNI,AndOtherIdentifiersForPublic-FacingScholarshipWithAFocusOnHumanities
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/582c44b5-783d-41b4-a61e-9c2653e57dfd/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T00H38M31S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/582c44b5-783d-41b4-a61e-9c2653e57dfd
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/582c44b5-783d-41b4-a61e-9c2653e57dfd/UseOfORCID%2cISNI%2cAndOtherIdentifiersForPublic-FacingScholarsh.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=TdOHaBGi1loWn%2B9Vqx3qKKCDchN%2BfKcTaRfO3spwd1Y%3D&st=2024-05-17T02%3A46%3A19Z&se=2024-05-17T04%3A51%3A19Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-03-06T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
Everyone I hope you enjoyed the presentation with Cass, Chris and Vincent. Unfortunately, Cass cannot be with us today. She's a bit sick, so she. But I'm sure she will be available if you have questions later. You can get in touch with her. So our apologies for not participating.
Of course, that's a pity. So maybe to start with Chris and Vincent coming back to their presentations and some comments we had just after or just after the presentations. If I may just ask the first question to Chris. And the question would be about the lesser uptake of ORCID among humanities scholars.
Could you elaborate a bit on this? Maybe there are differences between science, scientific publications, publications in the humanities, maybe more open access journals or books, less commercial, you know, outputs, also maybe less funding coming to or supporting these outputs. Could you maybe give your opinion on that?
Sure hi, everybody. Thanks for listening to the talk. I think as I mentioned in the talk, we have a hypothesis as to what the main causes are of the lower participation. But I'd love to hear from the audience. I mean, I think we're by no means kind of experts in what humanities scholars want. And as a community driven organization, we'd like to be responsive to the needs of the community.
But, you know, just to recap what I mentioned in the talk, we think there's in general lower awareness of ORCID and what it can offer to researchers among humanities scholars. We think that there are fewer tools that are used, for example, in the digital humanities that are integrated with orchid, and there's a more diverse array of research outputs. And, you know, I'd say that the.
Integration of ORCID is strongest journal workflows. That's kind of where it started 10 years ago. And as we know, you know, humanity scholars outputs tend to be more monograph based, more software, more wide varieties outlined forms of output. So I think that's maybe one of the core drivers that a big driver of adoption of ORCID has been authors being asked for or good ideas when they're submitting a manuscript to journal.
And that doesn't happen in many of the flows that the workflows that digital humanities scholars use. Thank you, Chris. Any reaction from the audience? Nobody from the. From digital humanities online or involved in a.
In a years. In the humanities, I can say something, says Wendy Robertson at the University of Iowa. And digital humanities is a special case because it is so collaborative and the projects are so varied. And I think we really do need to work as was described in this discussion. And I think those faculty members are probably the most open to the identifiers because attainable challenges.
But they're coming from an area where I think there's so much independent research and the monograph is still kind of the Supreme idea. And in that case, we noticed this in the libraries that we have long described monographs really well, whereas journal articles not so much, and we make authorized headings. So those good and Leviathan Disney and so they, they already have a controlled point that they may not control but they haven't seen the perhaps haven't seen the need for it.
And so that's my guess on some of the humanities. But I'm hoping that if more ORCIDs are get into authorized headings or connected through viiv and Disney, that some of this could be bridged. Thank you. Thank you very much, Wendy. And this gives me the opportunity to ask a question to both Chris and Vincent about the links between ORCID and Disney.
Vincent, do you want to go first? Yes thanks, Chris. Ahead of everybody. Yes, there are links, both technical and strategical, I would say. The technical link consists in that it's OK to share the same 16 digitized syntax. So sne I would say gives a range of around 100 million of identifies six digit identify of syntax of need to ORCID to allow our key to attribute identifiers ORCID identifiers and it this system avoids that the same identifier of the same model, the same, I would say 16 digit range of figures to avoid that.
The same 16 range of figures is attributable by and/or keyed for two different people. So it would be something it would be a nightmare if it would be as such. So this system help to avoid this nightmare. There is also a strategic point between usenet or Qaeda that is now Al Qaeda, as I would say, common interest to improve discoverability, to ensure interoperability between which which are system.
And and there is on the table. The question to work on better documentation. For instance, regarding interoperability measure between an arcade and on for instance, there are respective websites with instructions for end users, for instance, and also to work on a shared approach. On ID, identify your ID challenges when a separate identifiers, for instance, could be given to a person, for instance.
This is a key question also of modernization, I would say, of data, which is also on the table. Yeah, I would agree with everything that Vince said you I think one of the things to bear in mind is that Disney and ORCID have both different scopes and different use cases. And as Vincent explained, kind of the scope of is ne is people are going to people who've contributed or organizations that are contributed to creative works.
The scope of ORCID is pretty broad, deliberately so, and because we don't want to exclude citizen scientists or people working outside of formal research settings. So basically the scope of ORCID is anybody who is engaged in scholarly communications that finds it useful to have an ORCID. But obviously there are key overlaps in terms of kind of published authors. But one of the key things is the authority model is different again, as Vincent explained, is a kind of an aggregation of a number of authoritative sources and has a central process in place to maintain quality.
And ORCID is very deliberately again researcher controlled. So I think that's enabled ORCID to get very broad participation. But inevitably the data is Messier because it's up to each individual what, what data they want to contribute to their ORCID record. So we support every supports bidirectional linking between those identifiers.
I think, you know, it's a question of looking at which ID better supports your use case is now an ORCID have a long history of working together. We signed an MOU at the beginning of ORCID and in fact I hope nobody would mind me saying we're in the process of kind of refreshing and updating that. So we continue to talk to each other as organizations and we are committed to interoperability and to cooperating with each other.
Thank you. Thank you, Vincent. Thank you. Chris, maybe it would be worth mentioning the fact that through the British Library is the portal, it's possible to link the two identifiers, meaning that, for example, any researcher can go to this portal and update is or information on the portal.
And this information is later retrieved by these the International Agency. So there is already a way to bridge the two identifiers. The only issue is that it's a voluntary action from the person who is identified, actually. Do you have any other questions? Yes, please. Do you?
But thank you. That's very helpful information and presentation. And I'm an excellent American association, so they may see the identifiers, very useful tools to disambiguate the main entities. While I'm using it. I mean, I find it very helpful sometimes.
It's frustrating when I find, you know, inflammation of the ulcers, just the ID numbers and the personal name of the ORCID website. It doesn't help with the antiquities. Is there any plan that you might. Kind of required field to input any affiliation or anything to disambiguate the entity.
Another question how to consent for the musical library of friends. There is another identifier penis that we can use to find the IDs like personal identifiers. Just curious, I mean, why not using beef? Lipsyte I mean, the 80s instead of Disney.
I mean, it's kind of obvious question because Disney is international tonight. But just curious because it looks redundant work. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ian. Shall I take it? Yes yes, please. Well, thank you, suyin, for the question to answer your question straightforwardly, no, we don't have any plans to make any more data in an ORCID record mandatory.
And that's a very deliberate choice. We want to be as broad as possible, and it's hard to think about what data we might make mandatory. That wouldn't exclude some people who find it useful to have an ORCID. For example, we want to enable grad students to obtain ORCIDs or even undergrads to obtain ORCIDs early on in their careers.
So, you know, requiring them to add publications or works would prevent that problem. The only field that's currently mandatory in the ORCID record is the given name. And again, that's a deliberate choice because in some cultures, people only have one name as a given name and we don't want to exclude anybody in those cultures from participating in ORCID. But I turn it around and say, you know what?
What we can all do to help increasing the amount of information in our records is one of our key goals. But we don't think that it's best to try and improve that through applications of requirements or mandates or sticks. We think it's much better to create incentives for people to have well populated ORCID records, and that's where re-use really comes into play.
So if data is reused when from an ORCID record, when somebody is submitting a manuscript or a grant application, that's going to save them time and researchers love to save time. So that provides an incentive, we believe, for more researchers to populate that ORCID records. The other side of that is, you know, we want to reduce the amount of effort that is required upon researchers to maintain their ORCID records.
And in the past, there's been an expectation that researchers would spend a lot of time and effort and curate their ORCID records. And clearly, that's not the case. Researchers want to do researchers and don't want to deal with metadata or pids or systems or any of this. Right we should operate behind the scenes as much as possible and just make life easier for researchers.
So one of the key sources of data that we have flowing into ORCID today is from our pet provider partners, crossref and data science. They've both implemented what we call an update flow where if somebody supplied an ORCID earlier upstream in a workflow, that data gets flowed automatically into ORCID records. We would love for anybody who has authoritative data about a researcher where whether that's publisher, funder, their research institution to adopt those same kind of workflows.
This all happens with the researchers permission. They have to give organizations the permission to update their records. But once that happens, once they're granted that permission, the data flows in automatically. And we think that's the key to better populated ORCID records. And we would encourage anybody in the audience who has a source of data about researchers to figure out how to get that updated into ORCID.
And we have a support team ready to help you get that done. Thank you, Chris. I suppose Vincent will answer on the suyin question about the relations between the f and missoni. Yes and thank you, John, for your question, because it's a matter of interest for many libraries that their relationship because VR is reusing Disney and VR integrates Disney in its clusters.
But the aim of yaf and iceni are different via aims at improving dissemination of authority data produced by National Library or big Union catalogs, national Union catalogs, and disseminate them at larger scope within the web on the web. So the aim of yaf is focused on the dissemination of data, and the aim of iceni is to attribute identifiers to data coming from libraries, but not only from libraries, but also from overlays as for instance, right management agencies, from players, from book industry, from culture, industry and so on.
So the, the scope of iceni is quite broader than the one. Thank you. Thank you, Vincent. I can see there is a question also in the chat from old. About do you have a Chris do you have a program that reminds researchers that they are adding data?
And this goes with the question I had also about. Regulations regarding the protection of personal data, which is actually your I mean, ORCID is based in the us, the systems are based in the US and we know that there have been recent changes in privacy regulation with, for example, the Privacy Shield being challenged between well the agreement between the EU and the US.
So is are there specific issues because under personal data that you will encounter? Sure well, let me take Howard's question first. So and just to give some context, so ORCID has some pretty fine grained privacy controls in that the record owner or the user can choose for every element on the ORCID record, whether that data is public available to everybody included in a public data file, whether it's available only to organizations they choose to trust or whether they keep that private.
So I think that's what's behind how it's questioned and what we have done recently is tweaked our UI to hopefully clarify how that works and encourage people as part of the signup process to ORCID to make the privacy settings public by default. And then they can choose to restrict data elements if they want to. Having said that, with one exception, the vast majority of the data in ORCID is public, and I think it's very important to offer those privacy controls because it gives people a sense of control, and confidence in the system.
But the core value proposition of ORCID is make your scholarly profile information public. So I forget the numbers off the top of my head. But I looked at this last year, the vast majority of work's affiliation, funding and peer review information in ORCID records is public. So if it's not there, it's probably because it's just not been provided by the author or updated via system, rather than the fact that it's kind of hidden behind the privacy settings.
The exception is, is email addresses, and that kind of SKUs in the opposite direction. The majority of ORCID record holders choose to keep their email addresses private, and I think that's a difficult trade off because there are clearly very good use cases for having access to researchers, public email addresses, but inevitably that would also result in, you know, spamming and annoyance to researchers.
So that's something we think about and particularly about whether we should encourage researchers to make their email addresses at least available to trusted organizations. But I think it will be a big step to kind of make the default public for email addresses. So I hope that answers your question, Howard. Gale, your kind of broad a question about the kind of privacy implications of ORCID.
We take privacy very, very seriously, particularly GDPR, which is still even though privacy regulations, I think, are catching up in other parts of the world. I think we still view GDPR as the GDPR is the kind of gold standard and the most strict privacy regulations. One of the challenges which you referenced is the decision by the European Court of justice, I think it was two years ago, to deprecate the existing privacy framework between the EU and the US for data transfers.
That was the result of a court case that became known as Schrems two after the gentleman who litigated it. And as a result, it became more difficult for organizations to transfer personal data to the US because of concerns about us surveillance. As a remedy to that. The protection that we can put in place there is what's known as a standard set of standard contractual clauses which provide an agreed framework from the EU to support that data export and give it a legal basis.
So over the past couple of years, we've been busy signing those six, as they're called, with all of our members in the EU. And that can be quite a lengthy process that requires in some cases, the data exporter, so those organizations to conduct what's called a data transfer impact assessment. We've worked on those collaboratively with a number of our consortia.
That doesn't apply to data that's provided by the individual. So data that ORCID has provided by the individual is based on consent. We make it very clear when they sign up to it that our data is held in the US and then they can make the choice to whether they want to, to accept that or not. One last thing I'll say is that there was a recent executive order from the US President requiring an implementation of new safeguards in us data gathering for intelligence.
And the hope is that that executive order has resulted from discussions between the EU and the us, and the hope and expectation is that the European regulators will then look at that new framework and issue what's known as an adequacy decision for data exports to the US. So that's at least expected in some sometime later in the year. And no doubt once that happens, it will be litigated again. But I think certainly between the current government, current governments of the EU and the us, there's a lot of goodwill to that out because the current framework with sex is very complex and quite onerous for everybody to evolve to comply with.
Thank you very much for this detailed explanation on the process. And I was not aware that actually there was a difference between individuals that data supplied by individuals and data supplied by the National consortia or CDR is working with. Thanks any other question?
Maybe in the chat or. No I had a question for Vincent. I was wondering because you mentioned iceni and of course, identify researchers or authors. And you just tell us in which publications in which types of publications do I mean, does this, nia, or do members of the iceni governing board or iceni ANSI find information?
Is it in books, in edited books, in great literature? What are the sources for information and for identification with this? Thanks again for your question. The source for identification when I did identification work is made by registration agencies and the members, which give data to its database for attribution.
So the data and the scope of the is actually attributed. I would say depends on what is the members and is the registration agencies on. On work on. I would say it depends on their scope in. Depends on their mission. So it depends on their quality of identification. But usually speaking and the policy of identification could be different between, for instance, cultural industry and libraries as far as libraries are concerned.
The data for identification are formed either on the publication themselves or on source publicly available. Both printed sources or database also is available on some websites and so on. So and libraries have often a policy for identification because libraries fall into the scope or of privacy rules for it, the scope of a.g for libraries in EU.
So we cannot make some information publicly even. We can find it in some websites or some in sources because of course this data is publicly available and is very widely disseminated in the web. So and this is the same thing for so and this is one of the task of the quality team is to follow that the privacy rules, namely LGBT, are strictly applied by iceni and Eastern members.
Thank you. Thank you, Vincent. Although more questions from the audience. To Chris or Vincent, maybe getting back to the kind of theme of the theme of the session, I'd love to hear any suggestions from anybody in the audience who works with humanities researchers about what more we can do to support them.
Because we we're definitely interested. It's definitely a priority for us. But I think we need kind of input from the community on what are the most important things, what would have the most impact? Yes, you're right, Chris. Coming back to your suggestion or your earlier suggestion, I said, would be also good to have some suggestions for our colleagues at nice.
So what could be improved. See from Greg. Thanks, Greg. Outreach at major humanities conferences. Any any specific suggestions on what those might be? I'm clearly not a humanist. And there are people in ORCID who know more. But great.
Thanks, Greg. Other thoughts? Well, you're speaking with acronyms. That's great. But maybe I'm not sure we are all familiar with those. I see how you made a good point about the National Endowment for the Humanities.
And I think that is actually an interesting thing to follow up on in that my understanding is that the Nelson memo, the US memo on public access to research has bought both NIH, the National Endowment for the Humanities and NEA National Endowment for the Arts as funders into scope of their recommendations. So that's, I think, a really good idea to obviously, that's only us, but it is a good idea.
And I might ping you to see if you have any contacts there. We we can reach out, Chris. I'd be happy to. I don't really have deep contacts there, but it's definitely an area that chorus wants to work in. So if we can do something together, that'd be great. Well, I think there was a specific presentation that the CNI did last year, I suppose, from these agencies that were reflecting upon the memo, the Nelson memo.
So there are I mean, the recording is available and I think they were there. I think also I think it was the SSP one in December maybe. But but yeah, they're definitely interested. They're trying to learn from their colleagues and they need to get their plans in by the summer. So they're quickly trying to learn. Great that's a good idea.
Say a suggestion to outreach directly to humanities journals. Yeah, I think we have bigger gaps in with monographs. And I think because, you know, there are a handful of specialist humanities journals, publishers, but a lot of the humanities journals are published by publishers who also probably science social science journals and just integrated with all good across their workflows and all of them major manuscript tracking systems, both the open source and the commercial ones, already have pretty good orkut integrations.
But I'd love to have some thoughts about what we can do to get better sources of integration with major QuickBooks data sets, because we definitely have kind of gray gray areas there. And it's much harder for researchers to populate their ORCID records with book publications and monograph publications. And as with journals.
And less and less, those books are happening to be flowing through crossref, which obviously deals with both books and journals. Does anyone have suggestions coming in the chat? I'm hoping somebody from the ORCID team is writing these down. I see a few people on the team on the call. Is there anybody in the cold who actually has a system that is used by humanity scholars?
I'd like to have a discussion about what we could do to integrate. Don't see any. OK, maybe we don't have quite the right audience for that discussion. Yeah and Greg, thank you for that reminder. I think the NLA integration with orkut is probably the most important.
We have today with ORCID and we'd love to see more, more examples like that. Our colleagues prefer writing in the chat rather than we have.
Here's some colleagues from Canada. That's great. It's great to see that to you that you're working on integrating. Good yes. It's going to be hard to reach out to researchers, I think. Yeah, I think the key thing is, is, is just making it useful for Hollywood.
Right if you can save them a bit of time by sucking in data from their ORCID profile so they don't have to retype it into the form again, that's going to encourage people to hopefully establish an ORCID record. Yeah we think about collaborating with librarians to do that with the journals also. But in eight years, I've seen less than 10 authors using arcade.
I think. Paloma as a comment, I think. Yes many thanks, Gael. Here's Paloma thaumatin from ORCID as well. Matthew I would definitely love to have an ORCID integration. Edit so maybe something that can be thought is also having a certain link with it. This will promote both not only the humanities and social scientists Sciences sorry, but also the French language.
So we are more than happy to discuss this with you, if you wish. And also, of course, as part of our Canadian consortium. Thank you, Paloma. So I don't know whether you have more comments or questions or suggestions to Chris and Vincent.
And, you know, I think you've got to. We've got a few more minutes. So if you have any more general questions for us about either awkward or isn't he happy to address those as well? Yes so your public addresses are on the web and your. And you're happy to answer any further queries. Thanks a lot again for your time, Vincent. Thanks to Chris. Thank you very much for participating to this Q&A.
And well well, we can answer your questions later. And Kendra has just mentioned the fact that we are over time. So thank you very much and talk to you soon. Bye bye. Bye bye. I thank you very much.