Cadmore media player playing video Use of ORCID, ISNI, and other identifiers for public-facing scholarship with a focus on humanities 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:
Use of ORCID, ISNI, and other identifiers for public-facing scholarship with a focus on humanities Recording
Description:
Use of ORCID, ISNI, and other identifiers for public-facing scholarship with a focus on humanities Recording
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/9e3ac289-de05-4ab3-a07a-37e366d42024/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_3.jpg
Duration:
T00H43M30S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/9e3ac289-de05-4ab3-a07a-37e366d42024
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/9e3ac289-de05-4ab3-a07a-37e366d42024/Use of ORCID%2c ISNI%2c and other identifiers for humanities sch.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=Vr8t6Okh4J3vB%2BtQmER6CRwlzJ1q8qFMojL7%2BNF4zko%3D&st=2024-12-08T19%3A37%3A28Z&se=2024-12-08T21%3A42%3A28Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-03-06T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
Good morning. Good afternoon.
Good evening, everyone. Welcome to my NISO Plus 2023. We're really happy to have you attending the session with our three speakers. We're going to talk about identifiers for the Humanities and thes session's topic actually came out of a meeting we had with NISO early September last year where we discussed, you know, several topics and especially topics related to identifiers.
And the idea is today to hear our three speakers on this topic and I would like, first of all, to thank them for agreeing to present today. And I will start with introducing Kath Burden. Kath has held a number of scholarly communication roles from managing editor to Director over the past 15 years at Routledge, Taylor Francis. She is the co convener of the publishing and publicly engaged humanities group.
She is interested in how connections are made within and across the research ecosystem. She engages with researcher communities to develop model publishing practices that capture the diverse array of outputs. And she wants to make a difference on how knowledge is preserved, disseminated and created. So Kath we are eager to listen to you. Thank you.
Thank you, Gaelle. And hello, everybody. So I'm just going to take a moment to share my slides. Thank you for the lovely warm introduction, Gail. And hello, everybody. As Gaelle said, I'm Kath Burton development lead for humanities journals at Routledge, Taylor and Francis and I'm also the co-chair of the publishing and the publicly engaged humanities working group.
I'm going to start our conversation today by zooming in on one area of humanities research to spotlight the case of publicly engaged Scholarship and Pose a number of questions for the nice community that might address some of the needs of humanities scholars in relation to the use of identifiers. I'll also talk a little bit about how publicly engaged scholars and the humanities are developing wide ranging conversations with and for the public and how this can lead to faster and potentially more effective forms of impact.
These conversations, in brief, are driven by the need to respond to a specific problem or need defined by public partners. And the projects and the work arising from publicly engaged Scholarship in the humanities is therefore naturally values focused and community driven. That means it includes many voices, diverse participants and produces a wide range of outputs, some of which might fit into the traditional definition of scholarly communication and others that are more digitally diverse and open and interconnected.
So to start us off, how might we help humanities research communities recognize and harness the transformational power of pids to increase connectivity and impact? I'm going to start with a little conceptual framing that I hope will highlight the goals of publicly engaged Scholarship and explain in a little more detail some of the types of work that this produces.
Publicly engaged Scholarship encompasses humanities research, teaching, preservation and programming conducted in partnership with diverse individuals and communities who are typically outside of the University context. Its research, aims and methods are collaboratively conceived and designed with the aim of benefiting all participants. It's an integral part of the faculty member or student's academic discipline, and it deepens and broadens the horizons of their Scholarship.
It also serves the public good, both in its processes and outcomes, and directing the resources of the humanities to address society's most pressing challenges. More broadly speaking, the circulation of publicly engaged work by publication, scholarly or otherwise, holds the potential to benefit all across communities and disciplines. The community's publication of publicly engaged Scholarship can help communicate the impact of the work.
And seed and inform future projects programming, research and teaching. It can also inform contemporary debates, amplify community voices and histories, and preserve culture in times of crisis and change. The scholar's publicly engaged work holds the potential to lead to and indeed to enhance academic publication, thus contributing to scholarly conversations and sustaining a scholars career.
But these collaborative research projects often call for publications that are quite different from the standard academic journal or article or book monograph, works that incorporate multiple voices, are broadly accessible. And are designed to intervene in public issues that may not easily fit into the standard academic journal or monograph design. And as publicly engaged, work is about process and methodology as much as it is about outcomes.
What options exist for including all aspects of a project's processes and methodologies, including failures and adjustments? The multi vocal, collaborative nature of publicly engaged work also poses challenges for linear author driven, print based publications, exhibits, performances, community archives and other participatory visual and collective activities may be more appealing and effective ways of making public the work of a publicly engaged project.
And digital publication still offers yet another range of options, allowing the combination of audio, visual and textual elements in both linear and non-linear storylines. Access to and pass through. Such resources can be shaped by community values and address multiple distinct audiences. It's a process that is often referred to as messy and one that can produce a wide range of outputs across the lifecycle of a project.
And in many ways, the publishing goals of publicly engaged humanities communities are shared across all disciplines the distribution of knowledge and sharing of ideas. But there are some key differences that might help deepen and appreciation for the unique aspects of the publicly engaged humanities. By their nature, publicly engaged projects are about affecting the wider world.
Success, in part, means demonstrating throughout the project what values and outcomes are embedded in the design. And describing in rich detail the many and multimodal outputs that emerge from engage, work, help to broadcast the many successful aspects of a project. An indexing can obviously help with access and discoverability, unless, of course, there's a project that's concerned with a certain control over protecting cultural heritage, others Indigenous knowledge and artifacts, in which case, there are a number of guidelines and standards for the appropriate use and collection of that data.
Well, they're using quantifiable metrics such as citations, grant funding and publication counts make it easier to assess research or researchers. These measures also provide a much narrower concept of impact and arguably don't measure the real value or contribution of research being done. This is potentially led to the downplaying of the value of the humanities generally as quantitative evaluation systems and rubrics for measuring the ripple effect of research can't easily fit the messy, open ended and hugely valuable qualitative research emerging from humanities communities.
This rich research often has significant value and impact on local communities, on health and wellbeing, and on broader quality of life. Moscow has moved towards adopting a more values based approach to Scholarship. They face challenges in finding publishing opportunities that. Scholarly communication, including the publication in books and journals, plays an important role in an individual scholar's career progression.
Publishing models that support career progression and also include an explicitly values based approach to scholarly communication, are therefore required to support scholars who are conducting values based public Scholarship. A focus on inclusivity, therefore ensures that diverse ideas, partner collaborations and shared values are well articulated at the outset and threaded through the outputs that emerge, and the due credit is given to the voices of participants and project leads.
So in summary, humanities researchers who are engaging with wide-ranging communities in their Scholarship as audiences, as partners and as co-creators are finding that the breadth of that Scholarship and the many forms that it takes doesn't traditionally form part of a project's evaluation or aren't accommodated in existing books and journals workflows. For instance, a historian working alongside a community to inform sustainable development of community resources may collect and analyze oral history interviews, could use documents and traveling exhibitions based on the lived experiences.
The historian may also produce and maintain a blog alongside the project, along with videos and other multimedia content of and about their research and/or created by participants. However little of this may be incorporated into a traditional academic book or journal article. So why is this an important topic to raise within the research community? The problem is that not all parts of public and publicly engaged humanities projects are well-served by the traditional publications that we've just been describing.
Those process steps, partner collaboration values and that messiness. So how might we go about changing that in a way that means the integrity of what matters to engage. Scholars persists, but ideas are still free to roam and create a new. And how can we capture and connect all of that good work that emerges from publicly engaged research in the humanities, including its failures, but often goes underserved and under-recognized in current publishing structures and systems?
In short, how can we use identifiers to ensure that all parts of the increasingly digital research and publishing process is recognized, linked and discoverable? Bring that question into sharper focus. I'm going to draw on one specific example to illustrate how public and digital and open forms of publication are working towards a solution. And then raise a question for the my surplus community.
I'm still surviving. It's a collaborative, publicly engaged project that brings together historians and designers to create a living Women's History of HIV/AIDS, primarily drawn from firsthand oral accounts, a participant's own experiences. It's part of history moves a public history project that works to transform historical subjects into history makers, led by project Director Jenny Brier and project designer Matt Wizinsky at the University of Illinois and Cincinnati, respectively.
I'm still surviving. Dot net is the project site. The outputs include audio, text, photograph and historical records alongside participant blog pieces and some more designed elements to support the historical framing and women's narratives. There's also a series of books published the PDFs on the project site that are published by blurb. While blurb provides an ISBN for each book, the ISBN is not registered in work at.
And the entirety of this project, rich in digital resources, contributors and content contains no identifiers. For instance, for the long list of academic contributors, there is no one ORCID. The audio embedded in the site has little to no metadata around it. There are no duis, Res or any of the research workflow identifies AI included.
So we start to see the shape of this problem for public facing scholars who are publishing outside of the more traditional pathways. Getting hold of a DOI for your project outputs requires a few more process steps and perhaps adds to the sense of overwhelm already felt by publishing outside traditional systems. I'm still surviving. It's a wonderful example of a publicly engaged project.
However, the products of this valuable, impactful work are not easy to find, site and share. In some ways, that may be fine, for instance, protecting the identities of the participants, but in others, such as ensuring the discoverability of the project's findings and preserving its legacy, is not so helpful to the humanities scholars. Content is an index and can't easily be found. I raise this as an example to spotlight the challenges associated with publishing the public and publicly engaged humanities, and to illustrate the need for publicly engaged scholars in the humanities to publish the full range of their work that will lead to greater impact and social change.
So how might that need be addressed by the research community? Perhaps this is an opportunity to bring together key stakeholders from across scholarly communications to address this problem. So that it's so deeply embedded in the goals of the public engaged humanities. This challenge is certain exist in other disciplines and are arguably not unique to the publicly engaged humanities.
There are plenty of science blogs out there, for instance, that are similarly challenge. This is where I want to turn the conversation towards other stakeholders in the scholarly communication universe. University based librarians have important roles to play in publicly engaged research. The scholars libraries obviously offer crucial resources for conducting research, and some may also be able to provide resources to community organizations.
Libraries can support public engagement efforts and facilitate connections between community organizations and scholars in many, many ways. For example, by hosting reading groups that bridge distinct communities. Collaborating to create digital material exhibits. Consulting on issues of privacy and intellectual property. Offering space design assistance and tools for digital projects, as well as flexible print publishing opportunities and providing repositories for long term access and preservation.
Perhaps most important, as professionals focus on the broad circulation of knowledge, librarians can help scholars think through what it means to produce research in service to the public rather than solely disciplinary aims. I'll finish with one last question that takes us back to the foundations of this conversation. How might we help humanity scholars recognize and harness the transformational power of identifiers to increase connectivity and impact.
And perhaps even more pointedly, what can the information community do to encourage greater use of identifiers by scholars whose work includes the publication of a vast array of different project outputs and with multiple scholarly and public partners. Digital and public are born to be together. So while some pockets of expertise exist to support public and digital publishing in the humanities, we have some fabulous guidelines from MLA for the evaluation of both digital and public scholarship, and there are many innovative scholarly communications projects that are emerging across digital humanities communities.
But how might we support the general humanities scholars to continue with that innovation so that their projects are not only rich in resources, but rich in the type of metadata and identifiers that will help their work attain equitable amounts of visibility, discoverability, preservation and impact these arguably enjoyed by the more traditional outputs. During the past year, a group of publishers, librarians and digital publishing experts started a conversation about the challenges associated with publicly engaged research, and that was currently funded by the scholarly communications network.
This has resulted in the publication of an open educational resource, Publicly Engaged Publishing dot Org that follows the science community and practice approach and aims to spotlight the unique features of publishing public Scholarship in the humanities. The resource addresses a wide range of MLIS students and library professionals based at universities, especially those whose mission explicitly encompasses engaged Scholarship initiatives.
The resource also spotlights publicly engaged publishing initiatives that provide examples of scholarly communications projects with social justice values such as equity, access, fairness, inclusivity, respect, ethics and trust deeply embedded in their design and taking inspiration from the STM community of practice approach. The OER has been designed to encourage community led inputs so that the resource grows dynamically over time linking to supporting initiatives as and when they arise.
We welcome any and all inputs as we continue to champion publishing, publicly engaged Scholarship and look forward to exploring how we might connect with others at NISO Plus who might be able to answer some of the questions posed here and explore what options to help humanity scholars navigate and imagine the usefulness of identifiers in the course of their work. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Kath, for sharing with us the. The take of a publisher on this topic. And also mentioning this wonderful project, it seems to me at least, I'm still surviving. And I'm sure we'll have a lot of questions on this project. And based on your presentation. Thanks again. We're going to turn to Chris and ORCID. So after a publisher, here is the approach of a service provider.
We' ll listen to him as he describes the approach of an identifier provider or a service provider for identification. So Chris Shillum has spent 20 years working with Crossref and including 10 years as a board member. He was also a founding member of the ORCID board, helping this organization grow from a startup to become a sustainable part of the scholarly infrastructure landscape and he is now ORCID executive director.
He has been a member of the NISO board and he has spent much time trying to solve the access problem to research information, co-chairing, for example, the RA 21 project. And he has also built or worked with a coalition of industry organizations to operationalize those recommendations in SeamlessAccess.org. So welcome, Chris. And the floor is yours.
Great thank you very much, Gail, and it's great to be here. Back at nice surplus again. Hopefully you can see my slides and Thanks to kath for that great help. But as I think some of the, some of the challenges that you've identified kath, definitely align with what, what we're seeing, but I'd like to start with a statistic and some of you might be aware of this, but ORCID is used by over 9 million researchers on a, on a yearly basis the number of active records we have.
Yet we have evidence that adoption among humanity scholars is about a third lower than in the science disciplines. So I'd like to talk in this, talk a little bit about why that is and end with a call to action about what I think we can all do as members of the community to try and correct that imbalance. But let me first give you, I'm sure many of you are familiar with orchid, but let me give you a very brief overview of what we do.
We're a nonprofit, independent organization, membership organization, open to participation by all. And our mission is to enable transparent and trustworthy connections between researchers, their contributions, their affiliations, by providing a unique, persistent identifier for individuals to use as they engage in research, Scholarship and innovation activities. And we have very broad global participation. We have nearly 1,300 members.
We have members or these organizations and 57 countries around the world, including 26 national consortia. And we have, as I mentioned, about 9 million over 9 million active researcher records from nearly every country in the world, apart from a couple of very tiny island nations. We offer three main services, the ORCID ID, which is a unique, persistent identifier for a scholar or researcher, which is available free of charge to anybody who would like to obtain one.
Secondly, an ORCID record, which you can think of as a digital cv, which is connected to the ORCID ID that can include employment information, education information, all kinds of metadata and identifiers about research outputs. And then finally, and very importantly, a set of application programming interfaces, APIs which provide access to all of that data broadly to the community.
We offer a public API. We offer a public data dump on an annual basis, and we have about 4,000 other systems in the scholarly ecosystem that are connected with ORCID and interact with it on a daily basis. So clearly researchers at the center of ORCID. But what's in it for them? And we outlined a set of benefits, actually, to all of our stakeholder groups.
But I'm going to talk very briefly about the benefits to researchers. And we've outlined a six. And this might be a little bit small for you to read, and I won't go through the full detail. But ORCID ideas help researchers uniquely distinguish themselves and distinguish their work from other researchers who might have the same or similar names. They we enable them to maintain the integrity of their scholarly record, even though their names might change during the course of their career.
Obviously, that affects often female researchers more than the male or trans researchers who are more likely to change their names during the course of their careers. But indeed, any researcher might publish under a variety of different name variations and ORCID enables them to then collect all their outputs in one place under a unique identifier. One of the really important aspects for researchers is both saving time and reducing administrative burden when they enable the researcher to collect that information in one place.
And we enable more and more for that data to automatically flow into the ORCID record from the authoritative sources, whether that be publishers, funders or universities. And research institutions. And then we enable our APIs and our data dumps for that data to be reused. And a huge source of frustration among researchers is being constantly asked to provide the same information about their academic profile, their careers, their work in multiple forms and administrative processes.
So many of those systems that integrate with ORCID make use of that data automatically suck it in from the ORCID profiles so that researchers don't have to re-enter it. And finally, we're an open system that operates according to a set of principles that we defined 10 years ago. We have very strict principles around researchers being in control of that data, and that includes being able to access their data, remove it from work, should they so choose.
And put it on the system. So they're not locked into or care by any means. So in talking to humanities scholars and we actually held a webinar on this topic last year, the consensus is that those benefits and those needs are broadly similar between humanities scholars and researchers in other disciplines. So yet we still see that difference in adoption.
And there's a graph on this page that's taken from a piece of work that was done by Simon portrait digital science, published in 2021. And he used a data set assembled from orchid, Crossref and dimension data to give some view of the relative, both adoption of ORCID and the engagement in ORCID. And he analyzed based on country, based on discipline, based on also journal.
But I think the analysis that's relevant for this discussion is the one based on discipline on this chart. Adoption of ORCID is plotted on the vertical axis and he measured this by looking at publications in the dimensions data set that had ORCIDs included in the records. And I don't have the data behind this, but I've highlighted the humanities disciplines with the yellow box there and you can see they're all clustered lower on that vertical axis around the low to mid twenties, whereas other disciplines in physical and social sciences are in the upper mid 30s.
So that leads to what looks to me to be about a 30% difference, about a third difference in adoption. So why? Why is that? Well, we have some hypotheses. And some of these times are the points that Cath made. First, there's lower awareness of ORCID among humanity scholars and what the benefits are to them of obtaining and making use of an ORCID.
And we think that's because the specialized publishers and funders in the humanities have been slower to adopt ORCID than their counterparts. And we know that adoption by publishers and funders has been a clear driver, a key driver of adoption of ORCID among the sciences disciplines. Secondly, fewer humanities tools. And data sources are integrated with orchid, especially those around monographs, as opposed to journal articles, which are more predominantly used to publish.
And the humanities software outputs are very important in digital humanities and as have mentioned, a whole variety of non-traditional outputs. And that means that there's more manual work required of a scholar to maintain all of that profile information in their ORCID record. They can still do it, but they have to do it manually rather than the data flowing in from authoritative sources.
And then thirdly, thirdly, because there is a more diverse array of research outputs. And as I mentioned, a lower importance of journal articles. Some of the taxonomies that use, for example, to classify work types or contribution types don't really cover the variety of works, particularly those nontraditional outputs and ways in which scholars contribute to humanities research.
So I'll move on to my last slide and nice. So Plus being all about rallying the community and driving conversations and calls to action, these are some of the things that we think that members of the community can do to try and address this gap. First of all, we would love publishers or funders who specialize in the humanities to adopt ORCID in their workflows.
And we're very happy to talk about what that means in those specific cases. But essentially it means gathering, gathering ORCIDs. It means reusing the ORCID data in submission and application processes, and most importantly, publishing or adding research outputs systematically to ORCID records on their researchers behalves. Like the policy makers who work in the humanities to talk about the benefits of pet adoption, to humanities scholars, to address the gaps in terms of integration with tools.
And data sets. We'd love anybody in the audience who is a provider of tools or have data sources of monographs or software. And I'm calling out there, for example, worldcat, which is a great source of monograph data, GitHub ubiquitously used to preserve software outputs. Neither of those systems are integrated with orkut today, and we'd love to engage with the teams behind them and remedy those gaps.
But any other systems? We had a great presentation in our webinar last year from the folks who are working on the humanities Commons and although they haven't done it yet, they've got some great ideas about how everybody could benefit from integrating that tool with ORCID and then finally addressing the taxonomy problem, the owners of those taxonomies. In orchid, we try not to reinvent the wheel here.
We try and adopt standardized taxonomies wherever possible. So we'd love to work with serif, who now have taken on ownership of the category taxonomy of output types, work types with credit that's now being looked after by Nia. So that looks at contribution types to expand them to support researchers and humanities. So with that love to have a discussion about some of those ideas in the Q&A, and I'm sure there are many others as well.
But I will hand back to Gail. Thank you very much, Chris. And I think the reasons that you've alluded to in your presentation for the lesser uptake of humanities scholars, I'm sure will trigger some questions or remarks from the audience, because there may be other reasons also, I mean, besides this one for this lesser uptake, but that's something we'll cover later.
So Thanks. Thanks again. I will now turn to Vincent Boulet and Vincent works at the National Library of France. And he works there within the metadata department. He is the head of the team in charge of authority control for the National Library of France. He has been involved in the management of international identifiers and is notably a member of the ISNI Board of directors He is interested in the evolution of metadata as a member of IFLA and chair of IFLA cataloging section.
And last but not least, he has a PhD in history and he is going to talk about ISNI. So the floor is yours, Vincent. OK so thank you very much. Hello, everybody. I would like to focus my talk on Disney and specifically on the role libraries can play regarding the identify use management and especially the services they can offer to current communities.
And I will focus my talk on a specific role by your specific kind of libraries. I mean, national libraries and National Library networks, which have an official role and official mission assigned by their government to describe the each new publication issued in a given country and to make them available for all citizens and all communities for all end users by developing specific tools, catalogs and services for this.
And if the International Federation of Library Association calls these kind of libraries national bibliographic ANSI and therefore is totally complementary to the work led by the structures of identifiers. So shortly speaking. The libraries, I would say, are not only resource providers, but also can help you to manage your identifiers.
Libraries are public services of general interest, so they can serve as a trusted third party for you in line with their mission. They can keep identifiers in the database and give them durability. Sustainability complementary to what administrators of identifiers do. Libraries can make identifiers visible and can disseminate them by, for instance, implementing some linked open data initiatives.
In France, for instance, the National Library of France. Disseminates identifiers for all communities for free. And libraries associate identifiers to some nurture information or I would say, as nurtured as possible. Because the set description or of what identifiers identify. And these descriptions correspond to public open standards based on shared international models.
And libraries have a broader public service mission, and they can give advice on best practices and share their expertise to end users for identification issues. For instance, what data do you need for providing identification in an unambiguous manner and for avoiding duplicates also?
So here's an example of what I'm not sure I would say information mean. This is what librarians call in their strange language and authority records. And here is a record describing a researcher teacher in the Sorbonne University. And you can see here and identifier, namely here, an identifier as a notifier associated to a set of information whose purpose is not biographical, but to universally associate an identifier to a person with a name, a birth date, and a short description of his academic functions and also with sources supported the information on the person.
Libraries can be helpful for you with a second use case if you don't have any identifier and you need it in this case. Libraries can serve as an intermediary in line with their own scope of activities, of course, and with the rules and procedures applicable to each specific identifier.
For example, national libraries receive legal deposit and must described it. This is why the National Library of France, for instance, has been developing some services linked to its need in order to provide and is neat to all authors filing into the scope of the legal deposit. Other national libraries propose services to register iceni.
For example, British Library has opened a portal to ask honestly, you can register for a new iceni search this database to find the energy records, and you can also recommend additions or corrections to the existing iceni records. For those who are not very familiar with, I would tell a little word on it is ni means international standard name identifier is ni is an international ISO standard whose aim is to identify persons and organizations that contribute to creative works, including writers, artists, creators, performers, researchers, producers, publishers and so on.
Disney is a bridge identifier allowing to envelop in a global and trans domain movement. All of the specific identifiers designed for specific needs and communities. This is why Disney has an. Universal, premature and is unique, perennial and centrally administered with, for instance, a quality team composed by National Library of France and British library, a quality team that works on cleaning the database, on avoiding duplicates, and on testing the alignment rules.
This is also why it's neat and awkward or complementary, technically and intellectual, and why they can be used in a coherent and complementary way. Please allow me to take the French example to illustrate it. The French government has implemented plans for the open science, which means to ensure the free dissemination of research, publication and data.
Open science is built on the opportunity presented by the digital transformation to develop open access to publications and as far as possible to research data. And in this framework, the French higher education and research institutions have banned a consortium membership in ORCID and are building a community of practices around ORCID.
You can see here the website of orchid, France, which promotes the use of ORCID within the French research community. And in order to build a community of practice around ORCID services. The website is designed for documentation and research, support services, scientific communities and research partners.
It contains a panel of shared resources for what we used and an API space which provides answers to institutions wishing to implement ORCID services by presenting several use cases. So we have in the information information information Sciences Library world in France to major players on identify use.
On the one hand, the National Library of France that develops services based on its need for all communities. And on the other hand, the bibliographic ANSI for higher education, managing catalogs and data services for all academic and research libraries, which works on the development of ORCIDs. Our ambition in France is to create a common world, a common bridge, joining these two pillars.
And this is the reason why we are working now on a project called national entity file with both ORCID and iceni in order to develop common services and uses with a consistent national identifiers policy. So this project is expected to come into production from 2025, so it will be operational within three years.
So let's break down the walls and thank you. That's it for me. And I would be happy to hear your comments and feedback and to answer your questions. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Vincent. And thanks again to Kath and Chris for their presentations. Please stay with us.
I have a few questions about our speakers presentations, but I'm sure you have also a few ones. So stay with us and we'll start the conversation. Thank you.
Segment:0 .
Good morning. Good afternoon.
Good evening, everyone. Welcome to my NISO Plus 2023. We're really happy to have you attending the session with our three speakers. We're going to talk about identifiers for the Humanities and thes session's topic actually came out of a meeting we had with NISO early September last year where we discussed, you know, several topics and especially topics related to identifiers.
And the idea is today to hear our three speakers on this topic and I would like, first of all, to thank them for agreeing to present today. And I will start with introducing Kath Burden. Kath has held a number of scholarly communication roles from managing editor to Director over the past 15 years at Routledge, Taylor Francis. She is the co convener of the publishing and publicly engaged humanities group.
She is interested in how connections are made within and across the research ecosystem. She engages with researcher communities to develop model publishing practices that capture the diverse array of outputs. And she wants to make a difference on how knowledge is preserved, disseminated and created. So Kath we are eager to listen to you. Thank you.
Thank you, Gaelle. And hello, everybody. So I'm just going to take a moment to share my slides. Thank you for the lovely warm introduction, Gail. And hello, everybody. As Gaelle said, I'm Kath Burton development lead for humanities journals at Routledge, Taylor and Francis and I'm also the co-chair of the publishing and the publicly engaged humanities working group.
I'm going to start our conversation today by zooming in on one area of humanities research to spotlight the case of publicly engaged Scholarship and Pose a number of questions for the nice community that might address some of the needs of humanities scholars in relation to the use of identifiers. I'll also talk a little bit about how publicly engaged scholars and the humanities are developing wide ranging conversations with and for the public and how this can lead to faster and potentially more effective forms of impact.
These conversations, in brief, are driven by the need to respond to a specific problem or need defined by public partners. And the projects and the work arising from publicly engaged Scholarship in the humanities is therefore naturally values focused and community driven. That means it includes many voices, diverse participants and produces a wide range of outputs, some of which might fit into the traditional definition of scholarly communication and others that are more digitally diverse and open and interconnected.
So to start us off, how might we help humanities research communities recognize and harness the transformational power of pids to increase connectivity and impact? I'm going to start with a little conceptual framing that I hope will highlight the goals of publicly engaged Scholarship and explain in a little more detail some of the types of work that this produces.
Publicly engaged Scholarship encompasses humanities research, teaching, preservation and programming conducted in partnership with diverse individuals and communities who are typically outside of the University context. Its research, aims and methods are collaboratively conceived and designed with the aim of benefiting all participants. It's an integral part of the faculty member or student's academic discipline, and it deepens and broadens the horizons of their Scholarship.
It also serves the public good, both in its processes and outcomes, and directing the resources of the humanities to address society's most pressing challenges. More broadly speaking, the circulation of publicly engaged work by publication, scholarly or otherwise, holds the potential to benefit all across communities and disciplines. The community's publication of publicly engaged Scholarship can help communicate the impact of the work.
And seed and inform future projects programming, research and teaching. It can also inform contemporary debates, amplify community voices and histories, and preserve culture in times of crisis and change. The scholar's publicly engaged work holds the potential to lead to and indeed to enhance academic publication, thus contributing to scholarly conversations and sustaining a scholars career.
But these collaborative research projects often call for publications that are quite different from the standard academic journal or article or book monograph, works that incorporate multiple voices, are broadly accessible. And are designed to intervene in public issues that may not easily fit into the standard academic journal or monograph design. And as publicly engaged, work is about process and methodology as much as it is about outcomes.
What options exist for including all aspects of a project's processes and methodologies, including failures and adjustments? The multi vocal, collaborative nature of publicly engaged work also poses challenges for linear author driven, print based publications, exhibits, performances, community archives and other participatory visual and collective activities may be more appealing and effective ways of making public the work of a publicly engaged project.
And digital publication still offers yet another range of options, allowing the combination of audio, visual and textual elements in both linear and non-linear storylines. Access to and pass through. Such resources can be shaped by community values and address multiple distinct audiences. It's a process that is often referred to as messy and one that can produce a wide range of outputs across the lifecycle of a project.
And in many ways, the publishing goals of publicly engaged humanities communities are shared across all disciplines the distribution of knowledge and sharing of ideas. But there are some key differences that might help deepen and appreciation for the unique aspects of the publicly engaged humanities. By their nature, publicly engaged projects are about affecting the wider world.
Success, in part, means demonstrating throughout the project what values and outcomes are embedded in the design. And describing in rich detail the many and multimodal outputs that emerge from engage, work, help to broadcast the many successful aspects of a project. An indexing can obviously help with access and discoverability, unless, of course, there's a project that's concerned with a certain control over protecting cultural heritage, others Indigenous knowledge and artifacts, in which case, there are a number of guidelines and standards for the appropriate use and collection of that data.
Well, they're using quantifiable metrics such as citations, grant funding and publication counts make it easier to assess research or researchers. These measures also provide a much narrower concept of impact and arguably don't measure the real value or contribution of research being done. This is potentially led to the downplaying of the value of the humanities generally as quantitative evaluation systems and rubrics for measuring the ripple effect of research can't easily fit the messy, open ended and hugely valuable qualitative research emerging from humanities communities.
This rich research often has significant value and impact on local communities, on health and wellbeing, and on broader quality of life. Moscow has moved towards adopting a more values based approach to Scholarship. They face challenges in finding publishing opportunities that. Scholarly communication, including the publication in books and journals, plays an important role in an individual scholar's career progression.
Publishing models that support career progression and also include an explicitly values based approach to scholarly communication, are therefore required to support scholars who are conducting values based public Scholarship. A focus on inclusivity, therefore ensures that diverse ideas, partner collaborations and shared values are well articulated at the outset and threaded through the outputs that emerge, and the due credit is given to the voices of participants and project leads.
So in summary, humanities researchers who are engaging with wide-ranging communities in their Scholarship as audiences, as partners and as co-creators are finding that the breadth of that Scholarship and the many forms that it takes doesn't traditionally form part of a project's evaluation or aren't accommodated in existing books and journals workflows. For instance, a historian working alongside a community to inform sustainable development of community resources may collect and analyze oral history interviews, could use documents and traveling exhibitions based on the lived experiences.
The historian may also produce and maintain a blog alongside the project, along with videos and other multimedia content of and about their research and/or created by participants. However little of this may be incorporated into a traditional academic book or journal article. So why is this an important topic to raise within the research community? The problem is that not all parts of public and publicly engaged humanities projects are well-served by the traditional publications that we've just been describing.
Those process steps, partner collaboration values and that messiness. So how might we go about changing that in a way that means the integrity of what matters to engage. Scholars persists, but ideas are still free to roam and create a new. And how can we capture and connect all of that good work that emerges from publicly engaged research in the humanities, including its failures, but often goes underserved and under-recognized in current publishing structures and systems?
In short, how can we use identifiers to ensure that all parts of the increasingly digital research and publishing process is recognized, linked and discoverable? Bring that question into sharper focus. I'm going to draw on one specific example to illustrate how public and digital and open forms of publication are working towards a solution. And then raise a question for the my surplus community.
I'm still surviving. It's a collaborative, publicly engaged project that brings together historians and designers to create a living Women's History of HIV/AIDS, primarily drawn from firsthand oral accounts, a participant's own experiences. It's part of history moves a public history project that works to transform historical subjects into history makers, led by project Director Jenny Brier and project designer Matt Wizinsky at the University of Illinois and Cincinnati, respectively.
I'm still surviving. Dot net is the project site. The outputs include audio, text, photograph and historical records alongside participant blog pieces and some more designed elements to support the historical framing and women's narratives. There's also a series of books published the PDFs on the project site that are published by blurb. While blurb provides an ISBN for each book, the ISBN is not registered in work at.
And the entirety of this project, rich in digital resources, contributors and content contains no identifiers. For instance, for the long list of academic contributors, there is no one ORCID. The audio embedded in the site has little to no metadata around it. There are no duis, Res or any of the research workflow identifies AI included.
So we start to see the shape of this problem for public facing scholars who are publishing outside of the more traditional pathways. Getting hold of a DOI for your project outputs requires a few more process steps and perhaps adds to the sense of overwhelm already felt by publishing outside traditional systems. I'm still surviving. It's a wonderful example of a publicly engaged project.
However, the products of this valuable, impactful work are not easy to find, site and share. In some ways, that may be fine, for instance, protecting the identities of the participants, but in others, such as ensuring the discoverability of the project's findings and preserving its legacy, is not so helpful to the humanities scholars. Content is an index and can't easily be found. I raise this as an example to spotlight the challenges associated with publishing the public and publicly engaged humanities, and to illustrate the need for publicly engaged scholars in the humanities to publish the full range of their work that will lead to greater impact and social change.
So how might that need be addressed by the research community? Perhaps this is an opportunity to bring together key stakeholders from across scholarly communications to address this problem. So that it's so deeply embedded in the goals of the public engaged humanities. This challenge is certain exist in other disciplines and are arguably not unique to the publicly engaged humanities.
There are plenty of science blogs out there, for instance, that are similarly challenge. This is where I want to turn the conversation towards other stakeholders in the scholarly communication universe. University based librarians have important roles to play in publicly engaged research. The scholars libraries obviously offer crucial resources for conducting research, and some may also be able to provide resources to community organizations.
Libraries can support public engagement efforts and facilitate connections between community organizations and scholars in many, many ways. For example, by hosting reading groups that bridge distinct communities. Collaborating to create digital material exhibits. Consulting on issues of privacy and intellectual property. Offering space design assistance and tools for digital projects, as well as flexible print publishing opportunities and providing repositories for long term access and preservation.
Perhaps most important, as professionals focus on the broad circulation of knowledge, librarians can help scholars think through what it means to produce research in service to the public rather than solely disciplinary aims. I'll finish with one last question that takes us back to the foundations of this conversation. How might we help humanity scholars recognize and harness the transformational power of identifiers to increase connectivity and impact.
And perhaps even more pointedly, what can the information community do to encourage greater use of identifiers by scholars whose work includes the publication of a vast array of different project outputs and with multiple scholarly and public partners. Digital and public are born to be together. So while some pockets of expertise exist to support public and digital publishing in the humanities, we have some fabulous guidelines from MLA for the evaluation of both digital and public scholarship, and there are many innovative scholarly communications projects that are emerging across digital humanities communities.
But how might we support the general humanities scholars to continue with that innovation so that their projects are not only rich in resources, but rich in the type of metadata and identifiers that will help their work attain equitable amounts of visibility, discoverability, preservation and impact these arguably enjoyed by the more traditional outputs. During the past year, a group of publishers, librarians and digital publishing experts started a conversation about the challenges associated with publicly engaged research, and that was currently funded by the scholarly communications network.
This has resulted in the publication of an open educational resource, Publicly Engaged Publishing dot Org that follows the science community and practice approach and aims to spotlight the unique features of publishing public Scholarship in the humanities. The resource addresses a wide range of MLIS students and library professionals based at universities, especially those whose mission explicitly encompasses engaged Scholarship initiatives.
The resource also spotlights publicly engaged publishing initiatives that provide examples of scholarly communications projects with social justice values such as equity, access, fairness, inclusivity, respect, ethics and trust deeply embedded in their design and taking inspiration from the STM community of practice approach. The OER has been designed to encourage community led inputs so that the resource grows dynamically over time linking to supporting initiatives as and when they arise.
We welcome any and all inputs as we continue to champion publishing, publicly engaged Scholarship and look forward to exploring how we might connect with others at NISO Plus who might be able to answer some of the questions posed here and explore what options to help humanity scholars navigate and imagine the usefulness of identifiers in the course of their work. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Kath, for sharing with us the. The take of a publisher on this topic. And also mentioning this wonderful project, it seems to me at least, I'm still surviving. And I'm sure we'll have a lot of questions on this project. And based on your presentation. Thanks again. We're going to turn to Chris and ORCID. So after a publisher, here is the approach of a service provider.
We' ll listen to him as he describes the approach of an identifier provider or a service provider for identification. So Chris Shillum has spent 20 years working with Crossref and including 10 years as a board member. He was also a founding member of the ORCID board, helping this organization grow from a startup to become a sustainable part of the scholarly infrastructure landscape and he is now ORCID executive director.
He has been a member of the NISO board and he has spent much time trying to solve the access problem to research information, co-chairing, for example, the RA 21 project. And he has also built or worked with a coalition of industry organizations to operationalize those recommendations in SeamlessAccess.org. So welcome, Chris. And the floor is yours.
Great thank you very much, Gail, and it's great to be here. Back at nice surplus again. Hopefully you can see my slides and Thanks to kath for that great help. But as I think some of the, some of the challenges that you've identified kath, definitely align with what, what we're seeing, but I'd like to start with a statistic and some of you might be aware of this, but ORCID is used by over 9 million researchers on a, on a yearly basis the number of active records we have.
Yet we have evidence that adoption among humanity scholars is about a third lower than in the science disciplines. So I'd like to talk in this, talk a little bit about why that is and end with a call to action about what I think we can all do as members of the community to try and correct that imbalance. But let me first give you, I'm sure many of you are familiar with orchid, but let me give you a very brief overview of what we do.
We're a nonprofit, independent organization, membership organization, open to participation by all. And our mission is to enable transparent and trustworthy connections between researchers, their contributions, their affiliations, by providing a unique, persistent identifier for individuals to use as they engage in research, Scholarship and innovation activities. And we have very broad global participation. We have nearly 1,300 members.
We have members or these organizations and 57 countries around the world, including 26 national consortia. And we have, as I mentioned, about 9 million over 9 million active researcher records from nearly every country in the world, apart from a couple of very tiny island nations. We offer three main services, the ORCID ID, which is a unique, persistent identifier for a scholar or researcher, which is available free of charge to anybody who would like to obtain one.
Secondly, an ORCID record, which you can think of as a digital cv, which is connected to the ORCID ID that can include employment information, education information, all kinds of metadata and identifiers about research outputs. And then finally, and very importantly, a set of application programming interfaces, APIs which provide access to all of that data broadly to the community.
We offer a public API. We offer a public data dump on an annual basis, and we have about 4,000 other systems in the scholarly ecosystem that are connected with ORCID and interact with it on a daily basis. So clearly researchers at the center of ORCID. But what's in it for them? And we outlined a set of benefits, actually, to all of our stakeholder groups.
But I'm going to talk very briefly about the benefits to researchers. And we've outlined a six. And this might be a little bit small for you to read, and I won't go through the full detail. But ORCID ideas help researchers uniquely distinguish themselves and distinguish their work from other researchers who might have the same or similar names. They we enable them to maintain the integrity of their scholarly record, even though their names might change during the course of their career.
Obviously, that affects often female researchers more than the male or trans researchers who are more likely to change their names during the course of their careers. But indeed, any researcher might publish under a variety of different name variations and ORCID enables them to then collect all their outputs in one place under a unique identifier. One of the really important aspects for researchers is both saving time and reducing administrative burden when they enable the researcher to collect that information in one place.
And we enable more and more for that data to automatically flow into the ORCID record from the authoritative sources, whether that be publishers, funders or universities. And research institutions. And then we enable our APIs and our data dumps for that data to be reused. And a huge source of frustration among researchers is being constantly asked to provide the same information about their academic profile, their careers, their work in multiple forms and administrative processes.
So many of those systems that integrate with ORCID make use of that data automatically suck it in from the ORCID profiles so that researchers don't have to re-enter it. And finally, we're an open system that operates according to a set of principles that we defined 10 years ago. We have very strict principles around researchers being in control of that data, and that includes being able to access their data, remove it from work, should they so choose.
And put it on the system. So they're not locked into or care by any means. So in talking to humanities scholars and we actually held a webinar on this topic last year, the consensus is that those benefits and those needs are broadly similar between humanities scholars and researchers in other disciplines. So yet we still see that difference in adoption.
And there's a graph on this page that's taken from a piece of work that was done by Simon portrait digital science, published in 2021. And he used a data set assembled from orchid, Crossref and dimension data to give some view of the relative, both adoption of ORCID and the engagement in ORCID. And he analyzed based on country, based on discipline, based on also journal.
But I think the analysis that's relevant for this discussion is the one based on discipline on this chart. Adoption of ORCID is plotted on the vertical axis and he measured this by looking at publications in the dimensions data set that had ORCIDs included in the records. And I don't have the data behind this, but I've highlighted the humanities disciplines with the yellow box there and you can see they're all clustered lower on that vertical axis around the low to mid twenties, whereas other disciplines in physical and social sciences are in the upper mid 30s.
So that leads to what looks to me to be about a 30% difference, about a third difference in adoption. So why? Why is that? Well, we have some hypotheses. And some of these times are the points that Cath made. First, there's lower awareness of ORCID among humanity scholars and what the benefits are to them of obtaining and making use of an ORCID.
And we think that's because the specialized publishers and funders in the humanities have been slower to adopt ORCID than their counterparts. And we know that adoption by publishers and funders has been a clear driver, a key driver of adoption of ORCID among the sciences disciplines. Secondly, fewer humanities tools. And data sources are integrated with orchid, especially those around monographs, as opposed to journal articles, which are more predominantly used to publish.
And the humanities software outputs are very important in digital humanities and as have mentioned, a whole variety of non-traditional outputs. And that means that there's more manual work required of a scholar to maintain all of that profile information in their ORCID record. They can still do it, but they have to do it manually rather than the data flowing in from authoritative sources.
And then thirdly, thirdly, because there is a more diverse array of research outputs. And as I mentioned, a lower importance of journal articles. Some of the taxonomies that use, for example, to classify work types or contribution types don't really cover the variety of works, particularly those nontraditional outputs and ways in which scholars contribute to humanities research.
So I'll move on to my last slide and nice. So Plus being all about rallying the community and driving conversations and calls to action, these are some of the things that we think that members of the community can do to try and address this gap. First of all, we would love publishers or funders who specialize in the humanities to adopt ORCID in their workflows.
And we're very happy to talk about what that means in those specific cases. But essentially it means gathering, gathering ORCIDs. It means reusing the ORCID data in submission and application processes, and most importantly, publishing or adding research outputs systematically to ORCID records on their researchers behalves. Like the policy makers who work in the humanities to talk about the benefits of pet adoption, to humanities scholars, to address the gaps in terms of integration with tools.
And data sets. We'd love anybody in the audience who is a provider of tools or have data sources of monographs or software. And I'm calling out there, for example, worldcat, which is a great source of monograph data, GitHub ubiquitously used to preserve software outputs. Neither of those systems are integrated with orkut today, and we'd love to engage with the teams behind them and remedy those gaps.
But any other systems? We had a great presentation in our webinar last year from the folks who are working on the humanities Commons and although they haven't done it yet, they've got some great ideas about how everybody could benefit from integrating that tool with ORCID and then finally addressing the taxonomy problem, the owners of those taxonomies. In orchid, we try not to reinvent the wheel here.
We try and adopt standardized taxonomies wherever possible. So we'd love to work with serif, who now have taken on ownership of the category taxonomy of output types, work types with credit that's now being looked after by Nia. So that looks at contribution types to expand them to support researchers and humanities. So with that love to have a discussion about some of those ideas in the Q&A, and I'm sure there are many others as well.
But I will hand back to Gail. Thank you very much, Chris. And I think the reasons that you've alluded to in your presentation for the lesser uptake of humanities scholars, I'm sure will trigger some questions or remarks from the audience, because there may be other reasons also, I mean, besides this one for this lesser uptake, but that's something we'll cover later.
So Thanks. Thanks again. I will now turn to Vincent Boulet and Vincent works at the National Library of France. And he works there within the metadata department. He is the head of the team in charge of authority control for the National Library of France. He has been involved in the management of international identifiers and is notably a member of the ISNI Board of directors He is interested in the evolution of metadata as a member of IFLA and chair of IFLA cataloging section.
And last but not least, he has a PhD in history and he is going to talk about ISNI. So the floor is yours, Vincent. OK so thank you very much. Hello, everybody. I would like to focus my talk on Disney and specifically on the role libraries can play regarding the identify use management and especially the services they can offer to current communities.
And I will focus my talk on a specific role by your specific kind of libraries. I mean, national libraries and National Library networks, which have an official role and official mission assigned by their government to describe the each new publication issued in a given country and to make them available for all citizens and all communities for all end users by developing specific tools, catalogs and services for this.
And if the International Federation of Library Association calls these kind of libraries national bibliographic ANSI and therefore is totally complementary to the work led by the structures of identifiers. So shortly speaking. The libraries, I would say, are not only resource providers, but also can help you to manage your identifiers.
Libraries are public services of general interest, so they can serve as a trusted third party for you in line with their mission. They can keep identifiers in the database and give them durability. Sustainability complementary to what administrators of identifiers do. Libraries can make identifiers visible and can disseminate them by, for instance, implementing some linked open data initiatives.
In France, for instance, the National Library of France. Disseminates identifiers for all communities for free. And libraries associate identifiers to some nurture information or I would say, as nurtured as possible. Because the set description or of what identifiers identify. And these descriptions correspond to public open standards based on shared international models.
And libraries have a broader public service mission, and they can give advice on best practices and share their expertise to end users for identification issues. For instance, what data do you need for providing identification in an unambiguous manner and for avoiding duplicates also?
So here's an example of what I'm not sure I would say information mean. This is what librarians call in their strange language and authority records. And here is a record describing a researcher teacher in the Sorbonne University. And you can see here and identifier, namely here, an identifier as a notifier associated to a set of information whose purpose is not biographical, but to universally associate an identifier to a person with a name, a birth date, and a short description of his academic functions and also with sources supported the information on the person.
Libraries can be helpful for you with a second use case if you don't have any identifier and you need it in this case. Libraries can serve as an intermediary in line with their own scope of activities, of course, and with the rules and procedures applicable to each specific identifier.
For example, national libraries receive legal deposit and must described it. This is why the National Library of France, for instance, has been developing some services linked to its need in order to provide and is neat to all authors filing into the scope of the legal deposit. Other national libraries propose services to register iceni.
For example, British Library has opened a portal to ask honestly, you can register for a new iceni search this database to find the energy records, and you can also recommend additions or corrections to the existing iceni records. For those who are not very familiar with, I would tell a little word on it is ni means international standard name identifier is ni is an international ISO standard whose aim is to identify persons and organizations that contribute to creative works, including writers, artists, creators, performers, researchers, producers, publishers and so on.
Disney is a bridge identifier allowing to envelop in a global and trans domain movement. All of the specific identifiers designed for specific needs and communities. This is why Disney has an. Universal, premature and is unique, perennial and centrally administered with, for instance, a quality team composed by National Library of France and British library, a quality team that works on cleaning the database, on avoiding duplicates, and on testing the alignment rules.
This is also why it's neat and awkward or complementary, technically and intellectual, and why they can be used in a coherent and complementary way. Please allow me to take the French example to illustrate it. The French government has implemented plans for the open science, which means to ensure the free dissemination of research, publication and data.
Open science is built on the opportunity presented by the digital transformation to develop open access to publications and as far as possible to research data. And in this framework, the French higher education and research institutions have banned a consortium membership in ORCID and are building a community of practices around ORCID.
You can see here the website of orchid, France, which promotes the use of ORCID within the French research community. And in order to build a community of practice around ORCID services. The website is designed for documentation and research, support services, scientific communities and research partners.
It contains a panel of shared resources for what we used and an API space which provides answers to institutions wishing to implement ORCID services by presenting several use cases. So we have in the information information information Sciences Library world in France to major players on identify use.
On the one hand, the National Library of France that develops services based on its need for all communities. And on the other hand, the bibliographic ANSI for higher education, managing catalogs and data services for all academic and research libraries, which works on the development of ORCIDs. Our ambition in France is to create a common world, a common bridge, joining these two pillars.
And this is the reason why we are working now on a project called national entity file with both ORCID and iceni in order to develop common services and uses with a consistent national identifiers policy. So this project is expected to come into production from 2025, so it will be operational within three years.
So let's break down the walls and thank you. That's it for me. And I would be happy to hear your comments and feedback and to answer your questions. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Vincent. And thanks again to Kath and Chris for their presentations. Please stay with us.
I have a few questions about our speakers presentations, but I'm sure you have also a few ones. So stay with us and we'll start the conversation. Thank you.
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