Name:
Communicating the value of PIDs and metadata, What's in it for me, what's in it for you
Description:
Communicating the value of PIDs and metadata, What's in it for me, what's in it for you
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/858ac6da-abbd-4150-8fad-df8690768e82/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T00H28M29S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/858ac6da-abbd-4150-8fad-df8690768e82
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/858ac6da-abbd-4150-8fad-df8690768e82/Communicating the value of PIDs and metadata%2c What%27s in it f.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=2%2BtNWKsptWEGUg%2Fhcgunqqqq1U9mj6gK2ZoAD6NuaDY%3D&st=2024-11-05T07%3A17%3A22Z&se=2024-11-05T09%3A22%3A22Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-03-06T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
OK, great. I think everyone came over, so Yeah. Thanks again to Nigel for inviting us to speak and Thanks to our speakers for these wonderful presentations. I don't think I saw any questions in the chat, so if you have any questions, feel free to send them through the chat or through the Q&A box or just raise your hand and we'll let you speak.
Yeah I think in general, the main takeaways for me were the importance of making everyone aware of the importance of adoption. Adopting kids. And I really liked what the fourth Antonio's foresees. So consistency, consequence, commitment and collaboration. And it was really good to also see that there is an economical impact in adopting kids rather than just know librarian on the librarian side of things.
And yeah, and I think the main takeaways are, is this, is that we all need to increase awareness and educate people on the importance of things and also that we need to work together. Working together is really good and it's really important and it's what makes everyone move forward. So yeah, I think that was mostly what I had to say. I don't know if the speakers want to say something.
Oh Ted has a question for Antonia. I have found that many researches with ORCIDs do not make metadata associated with the ORCIDs open. Do you have the problem? Yeah I said I already saw your question in the Q&A. I was actually when the presentation were running and answered them. So I'm not sure in which context you ask this question. Do you mean in regards of the measurement of ids?
I mean, when you search ORCID for some name, you may end up with ten, 10 people with the same name and trying to disambiguate those people. You can use their affiliations or their works or various things to try and figure out which Ted Haberman is actually Ted Haberman. But in many cases that extra metadata is not open or not available.
And and so it makes it very difficult to. I mean, it doesn't exist. So it's hard to use it to disambiguate things. Yeah, that's right. Of course. I knew that fact. And in, in the course of our project or t to foster the implementation and the usage of orkut, we also encouraged our researchers or the librarians who have to.
Yeah, we have to present the ORCID to the researchers to in the orkut records with most information they want to show publicly. But there is the policy of orkut that you only have to put in your name. And I think that's all. That's right. So it's not the sense of orkut. Right but it's the policy.
So there are, of course, orkut records with only a name. So it's very hard to distinguish us, to distinguish the researchers from each other. But yeah, we have this unique, unique URL and this is one step to distinguish the researchers, but it's free. And everyone, every researcher is free to do so. So it's only voluntary. And we cannot force anybody to put it more personal information in the records.
Thanks so I posted a question. Hi there. Sorry Tom from ORCID. I'm just a little bit interested by this use case. Thank you. When? because ideally, ORCIDs get used during normal workflows, right? You might say, oh, go use your ORCID.
Or I guess authenticate and include it in things like DIY out there from date site and then it's displayed next to the data set when people visit similar things like grants. So I won't try to understand the use case where you might actually go and search for a name in the ORCID registry. Do you want me to tell you that or. Yeah, I'd be.
We can take it offline if you like, but I'm actually quite interested because it's not the primary use case that we think about when we think about, you know. It would be wonderful if more ORCIDs were actually available in either data site or in crossref or wherever you're looking. But if you have, say, a bibliography that might have a couple of papers in it, and you might therefore have 1,000 authors and and if you're lucky, you've got one ORCID per paper.
Or if you're extremely lucky and amazingly wonderful, you could have two ORCIDs per paper. So so you end up with a large number of names without ORCIDs. And that's when I start searching. So essentially, money disambiguation. Not be a way of putting it because let's say you've got several names, so I'm disrupting the conversation. We can chat about this offline, but I'm just interested.
Yeah, well, either manually or augmented something somehow. Augmented OK. All right. Thanks I would like to interrupt also. This is Sophie. I have had Sophie. I have a use case because where I work, we do not yet have a name, authority system, a database that allows us to look up or kids or the researchers that work in.
In the organization. So when we have certain submissions where we see that the author is quite prominent or publishing a lot, we think we'd like to put the ORCID idea in this record, but it was never submitted to us. So we're going to look into. We go to ORCID and we try to find that person's ORCID. So that's our use case. And yes, there have been situations where we would have needed some way to disambiguate.
The hits. OK great. Thanks OK. So another comment from Adam Tom. Yes Tom asked this question, so a comment from Adam. In a UK context we more often would see empty rather than hidden info.
I commented in the chat that we also have that problem in say Hello. We actually ask authors to send to inform their awkward IDs and we use those to see their previous publications so we can moderate their preprints. And yeah, we have a lot of authors with either empty, empty, empty IDs or also hidden information. So I think this is a question of doing of building awareness.
And I think making sure everyone is using their archives as they should use rather than just because they're asked to Adam oh, there we go. Hello yes. So I think this is part of the value of kids in general, actually. And it's one of the things that is, I guess, part of the evolution. And I know.
I know it's something like from the East coast, it's kind of not necessarily one of the primary use cases or either of the record or the identifier, but it's becoming more as at it is becoming like a way of referencing and using kind of secondary headset, kind of either augmenting or kind of starting to disambiguate things right. And we have like public systems where you say the primary author must have an author or the submitting or type and at ID and if you've got authors across five or six institutions and we start to have issues with Greenaway and lots of different repositories, I can get really confusing.
And then so both like from a machine interface point of view and from just trying to look people up. So instead, you start looking at the ORCID records to try and figure out exactly who people are because they're publishing, right? So you kind of assume maybe at some point they've interacted with ORCID. But maybe they just interact with it because they've been told they need an auction ID to get a grant because they're API or because they've needed to get something through a system, a piece of infrastructure that requires them to have an audit idea.
And we've seen this whenever we've been talking to people. Sorry I should point out here, part of the people in the UK who support the UK organ consortium and they don't necessarily quite understand the whole thing that they're doing when they interact with the ORCID record, what they're doing when they create their Open Record and about their ownership. And we've seen, you know, the personal assistant identifier sometimes having four or five people associated with an ORCID record because a group like created or one husband might share an ORCID record because they share something and a prof just creating one because he was interacting the system.
And then he has a different email, something else which created that and you know, all of those things. And it's something about the way that people interact with these things. And there are similar kinds of issues with doulas and raws and stuff like that, and issues about granularity and issues about exactly what they are and where they point to. And it's about how we create these identifiers and what they're for.
And then when they interact with the systems and the infrastructure that kind of like soft border at the edges. So that kind of exactly who is this person that's the fifth author of the paper is a really good example because that's not quite kind of an expected thing, right? That's kind of something that's kind of come along because we know that the authors on the papers, one or two of them have had to have an open idea.
And then there are other ones around, but also people not actually filling in their work ORCID records, because it's just the thing that they need to have. They don't see it as a record. That's about them. They see it as a number that they had put into a system and that kind of value and additional information either it's just not something that they care about.
And then we need to figure out the way that the systems. Put that other stuff in, or we need to make sure that that value is communicated and that all that stuff accretion. But obviously you just need your first name and last name and you get notified or your email address. You know, those are tensions there. And I get stuff I have lots of.
Yeah so I think this is the main this is a really important. Tom, would you like to speak? I saw you sent a pretty lunch. Let me speak. I don't want to monopolize the conversation. All Yeah. On the subject of getting users to use ORCIDs. The I think the path we need to take is to actually provide benefits to those users for doing so.
So if a researcher if research uses their idea to make their lives easier, it's designed to do that. It's designed with the researcher in mind. It should provide single sign on. All these different journal systems have different usernames and passwords, even though the same manuscript submission system, but different journals, different passwords, you don't have to remember them if you're using your ORCID.
Right you should be providing acknowledgments for things like peer review or editing journals. You should be posting things. Funders need to start posting more things about grants, right? So that researchers can prove they received funding, these kind of things. But what we do see, sadly, is in some cases, using your ORCID idea when you publish or deposit something in a repository actually makes your life harder.
And that's not because of orchid, it's because the way it's been implemented. So in a lot of systems, not in the system. In some systems, you actually have to dive into your settings and do some esoteric kind of configuration to get it to even ask you for your ORCID ID, right? And then every time you do something in that system, you have to push another button. You get to update your ORCID record or something like this.
So what that is doing is putting a barrier in front of you and it's making it harder for research to use it and not use it. And we need to flip that. We need to get more manuscript repository systems. Just put an ORCID right at the front. You click the button, then you forget about it. As a researcher, you shouldn't have to do anything else other than use it to sign in, which saves you time.
And then everything else just automated flows from that. And it's, it's improving the quality of the integrations. Using ORCID is what is going to drive things like adoption and items in ORCID records, right? So we see about half of ORCID rabbits have something in them. But if all publishers added items to these ORCID records when they are published, that would be much, much bigger. The same could be said of if all universities added affiliation information to ORCID records.
But they don't. They some do, but some require this extra step for researchers to actually put the burden back on the researcher when they should be doing it. So I think there's work to be done there, convincing these various stakeholders to have slightly better, more user centric system design. Yeah so yeah, I agree with that.
There's, there's pretty lively discussion in the chat. I don't know if anyone wants to start maybe open because you made a pretty interesting suggestion there. Well, first of all, I'm just happy to hear that there are certain adoption challenges in parts of the world where I thought things were working pretty smoothly. So it's quite refreshing to hear that some of the challenges there are, they still persist in other parts of the world.
But I think Tom kind of touched on the idea where for institutions, particularly in Africa, let me just talk about Nigeria that I know pretty well. The onus is on the researchers to somehow find a way of publishing to high impact journals, and that institution management does not take any responsibility for assisting publishers or researchers with getting their outputs out there.
So what tends to happen? You've got a few researchers who kind of know a bit about maybe all kids and some other page like duis, and then they try to get their content out there. They don't really understand how these things really work, but because it's a prerequisite to getting their content out there, they just try to get these bits in some haphazard way. So I was listening to what Adam from gist was saying, and I was just wondering what the opinions were about sort of institutionalizing the acquisition of things like awkward ids, whereby when, when a lecturer or a researcher joins an organization as part of the data that's captured or generated, maybe like an email address, institutional email address for that member of staff, why not also have a process where they actually acquire an arcade ID as it would be expected that they'll be using that during the course of their work or careers.
So just thinking what the thoughts were that everyone. Maybe I can take this and say some. Yeah so from my experiences from Germany, you saw as I know some organizations in Germany made it obligatory to have an awkward idea when new members joined the organization.
But unfortunately, I do not know how the feedback was on this, but there are some, some few organizations which made it mandatory. Yeah and also I was thinking that in Germany there are a lot more organizations have the rule in their affiliation publication policies to use puts and some of them made it more clear and say when you are public shaming under our affiliation, please use an arcade ID please use a route ID for our organization.
I think this is a pretty good way to highlight the importance of pets and also to widen out the implementation of the usage of pets. Gabby and maybe you would like to say something. Oh, sorry. Yes so, yeah, to follow up on one's questions and also on Antonius comment, actually many provider organizations like beta site ORCID crossref work with institutions.
Actually, these organizations are sustained by institutional membership and governed by institutions who are members. And I agree that researchers should see, should see and experience the benefit of using identifiers across the workflows and systems. But it really takes a village. So we need the researchers for the end users in most cases to see the benefit.
But we also need to show the benefit to institutions. So that they will do the work to implement these and modify the workflows and their systems to include and integrate this piece. And we also need to convince our funders to, to fund these initiatives and also governments and policymakers. So really, we need to it takes a village. We really need to have buy in from all the stakeholders in the community, also service providers.
So what I've learnt in my life, working in research support is that for researchers, anything that isn't research is a distraction and, and just a barrier to, to try and break through as quickly as possible in order to get back to research. That being said, though, research funding is very attractive to researchers. So if and we've experienced this in Australia, I mentioned in the chat when US and Australia has an ORCID consortium, it's not led by the Australian Research data commons, it's led by one of our partners.
And there was a very strong push for implementing ORCIDs at a very senior level. So it wasn't a case of OK, let's, you know, let's try and get a groundswell or anything like that. We sorry, I say we. I wasn't involved in the process, but fancy people with fancy titles. So the kinds of people with the word chancellor or director in their titles, they were all brought on board and said, hey, look, guys, ORCID is fantastic.
And especially if you can hook your systems into it to make it as transparent, as SeamlessAccess as possible for a researcher so that, in fact, a researcher never has to manually populate their ORCID profile ever. And then Ideally they never even look at their ORCID profile. They register for an ORCID once they then when they start at an institution, they, they, they come up to the system that likes collecting information about publications.
They log in there and authorize that system to be able to read and write from their ORCID. So then as they publish, that system gathers that data, updates their orchid, and then when they're applying for research funding from unfortunately only the Australian Research Council at this stage, they can then authorize the AOC system to read everything from the ORCID. And that saves them literally days of work because every grant application they filled out in the past before ORCID integrations, they would have to manually re-enter their entire CV of all of their publications and in some disciplines, whether en named on dozens of papers a year.
That took a very, very, very long time just for one application. So the automation and the time saving made it essentially self evident to researchers that this was a valuable thing. So we are seeing the vast majority of Australian researchers have ORCIDs and use them, sorry, in the University sector that apply for funding from the Australian Research council, I should say.
And I think the, the uptake is. Between 70% and 90% It's huge. Previous efforts around creating ORCIDs for researchers that didn't work work very well. It's when it was the benefit was shown to researchers. That's when they started doing it. Sorry, it's almost midnight for me and I'm rambling. I will be going to bed soon, thankfully.
Oh, no. Mathias that's actually very, very useful from my perspective, what you've just said, because one of the things we're trying to do in Nigeria as well is get our national education funders sort of involved in that process. They currently issue a lot of research grants, but at the moment there are no requirements to advocate IDs and even the funders themselves are not really using Peter at the moment themselves for issuing of grants.
But that would be a pretty it's really nice to hear that something was done like that in Australia because it's an approach that we're looking at in terms of if funders start to kind of mandate that this is a requirement, then yeah, I think that could drive a lot of the adoption. It's not necessarily mandated by funders, but it's implemented by funders and they say, hey, using this will save you a lot of time.
OK, right? So you can either enter all the information manually or login with your ORCID and slurp everything in. So it's more the carrot approach than the stick approach. But in terms of you've mentioned now grant ids, we don't do that very well in Australia at all. We there is no systematic minting of dice for grants in Australia by any of the major research funders.
The aoc, which I've mentioned before, the Australian Research council, are very strongly thinking about it but haven't necessarily committed or walked on that path. So yeah, dorry, we might seem like we're advanced, but in some areas there's still a lot of work to be done. So not that I'm against progress, but I'm really pleased to hear that there are similar questions and challenges everywhere.
Interesting actually in the US when you're submitting proposals to NSF, there's two parts where this comes in super handy. One is current and pending support and one is collaborators or something like that. And the advantage and there's a company and I'm forgetting the name who actually will read your ORCID profile and give you in the NSF form the information that you need for both of those things.
And the nice thing about those things is they're always done in the afternoon of the day, which is the deadline for the proposal. So being able to do them quickly is super helpful for those researchers because they're trying to get the proposal in tonight. And I need this and it's a big pain in the neck. So that's there is someone who's doing that commercially. Interesting OK.
You're still talking in the chat. That's great. This was a really great discussion and I'm really happy and thank you, everyone, that came by. I think it's actually about time that we wrap things up. So Yeah. Yeah thank you so much. And yeah, Thanks again tonight. So for organizing this and for inviting us and.
Yeah, thank you. Have a great day, everyone. Bye all right. Thanks, everyone. Thanks Bye.