Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Orcid for funders_audio transcription

291 views

Published on

Transcription of the 8th May 2017 ANDS webinar : ORCID for funders.
Slides and Video recording can be accessed form the ANDS website: http://www.ands.org.au/news-and-events/presentations/2017

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Orcid for funders_audio transcription

  1. 1. ORCID for Funders 8 March 2017 Video & slides available from ANDS website START OF TRANSCRIPT Natasha Simons: ORCID for funders webinar. My name is Natasha Simons and I'm a senior data management specialist with the Australian National Data Service, or ANDS for short. I'd like to introduce my co-organiser for this webinar, Nobuko Miyairi, who is the Regional Director of ORCID in the Asia Pacific, and she is based in Tokyo. Today's webinar looks at the role that ORCID can and does play for research funders. This webinar is designed to connect research funders who are integrating ORCID identifiers or who are looking to do so. We have in attendance research funders from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada and the USA. We have three excellent speakers at this webinar today. Josh Brown, who is the Director of Partnerships for ORCID. Sarah Townsend, who is the senior adviser in the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, known as MBIE, in New Zealand. Sarah was formerly the research funding analyst for the Research Councils UK Executive Directorate. Dr Richard Ikeda, who is director of Office of Research Information Systems and Research, Condition and Disease Categorisation in the National Institutes of Health USA, who is coming to us from Washington, or just outside of Washington DC. After each speaker, we'll look to see if there are any questions. Then at the end of all the talks, we will have some open mike time for everyone to have a say about anything you wish to discuss. I would just like to hand over to our first speaker, Josh Brown, who is Director of Partnerships at ORCID.
  2. 2. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 2 of 23 Josh Brown: Thanks, everyone, for joining us tonight. As Natasha said, I'm Josh Brown, I'm ORCID's Director of Partnerships. Before that, I worked for ORCID heading up their membership outreach and support in Europe. I've worked in a variety of projects with partners in Europe. It's a pleasure to be here today, perhaps talk a little bit about the work that we have been doing with funders. I'm not sure what everybody's familiarity is with ORCID, so I'm just going to start with a few introductory slides. Forgive me if you've seen these or something similar before, but it's just good to make sure that we're all at the same level of understanding as we begin. What is ORCID? Well, we'll start with the basics. An ORCID iD is an identifier for researchers. It's a unique identifier that complements their name, it can be attached to their research outputs, to their funding, to a lot of their activities. It helps us to disambiguate people. Sometimes there are circumstances where a person's name may change in their life, the way their name is recorded may change, there may be accents or changes of language that mean that the name is transliterated, and this can lead to confusion. This doesn't even take account of the circumstances where researchers may share a name. ORCID is a registry where the identifiers and identifying information about researchers is recorded and is made publicly available. We also provide a set of standard procedures for connecting researchers. This means that funders, publishers, universities and others can build ORCID iDs into their workflows and actually connect researchers to their work while the work is being done. We can do this because we work with a global community of research practitioners, investigators, policy makers, technicians and others to build connectors, to integrate ORCID iDs into workflows, and to put identifiers at the fingertips of people who are performing research and analysing it. We've managed to gather this kind of level of collaboration and community because we are an open organisation,
  3. 3. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 3 of 23 we are international scale and we are built on collaboration and cooperation. We are united by our vision, which is as expressed here, as a world where all who participate in research, scholarship and innovation are uniquely identified and connected to their contributions and affiliations. So that their contributions might be data visualisation, it might be writing a journal article or a monograph or editing a book. Their affiliations could be education, where you did your PhD, or they could be where you're employed or have been employed in the past. This is crucial that we connect this across time, so throughout the researcher's career; across disciplines, because research is interdisciplinary, people may change disciplines through their career, and the whole research enterprise is valuable; and of course, borders, because research is international. As you can see, so is our community. We have more than 3.1 million researchers who have registered for an ORCID identifier. We have more than 620 members from 40 countries, from all around the world, including many national consortia, including the national consortia in Australia and the Netherlands and in the UK and a number of other countries in Europe. We're currently exploring the launch of a number of further national consortia, so this slide will change in the very near future. Together, these organisations have produced more than 250 integrations. Now, some of these are in local systems that are used at one institution. Some of them are in platforms or services that are used by hundreds, or in some cases thousands of organisations. So the reach of these integrations is absolutely enormous. As you can see, the bulk of our integrations come from research institutions, which is where most of the research takes place. Our second largest group are publishers. Funders make up five per cent of our integrations, but again, I would imagine that a lot of the researchers from the 62 per cent of our integrations from research
  4. 4. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 4 of 23 institutions will be interacting with funder systems at one time or another. Or we would hope, anyway. One thing that's very interesting about the scope of this is that actually they are becoming required for use in some systems. Here you see an example of the mandate that was introduced just over a year ago, where a number of publishers said that they would start requiring ORCID iDs from corresponding authors for every article they published in their journals. Now, this number has continued to grow in the last year. So far, it has been actually quite a popular innovation, as this inset quote from Brooks Hanson from the AGU says. Out of more than 10,000 authors who have used this, one has complained about this new requirement. The value of this is not just that the publishers were asking or demanding ORCID iDs. It's actually that they have committed to a minimum level of integration. It means that they're not just collecting the ORCID identifiers, they are keeping that ORCID identifier connected to the manuscript through the whole publication process. They're putting it in the PDF, they're putting it in the webpage, and they are making it available publicly at a machine-readable and human-readable way when the article is published. Now, the value of that is that it enables new workflows when you know that ID is going to be there. One example of this is what we call the ORCID auto-update. The workflow for this is very simple. The author uses their ID when they submit a manuscript. The publisher ensures that the ORCID iD is there in the metadata in the file and on the webpage. When they mint a DOI, a digital object identifier for that article when it's published, CrossRef, the service that many publishers use to do this, will detect the ORCID identifier and then they will push the citation information for the new publication, straight into the author's ORCID record. The value of that is it means that it can go into any system that is looking at the ORCID record or is connected to it. That might be the
  5. 5. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 5 of 23 institutional repository at the author's home institution. It might be a funder reporting system. The value of this is that it means that any of these systems that are connected receive an automatic update and the citation for that publication. It means researchers don't have to go and tell you about that publication, and it means that everywhere that that citation travels, that ID is linked to it so attribution becomes more accurate and bibliometric statistics, citations and other analytics become more accurate. One of the reasons that we think funders care about ORCID iDs is that there are a number of ways that they can be used to improve the efficiency of research processes and to reduce the burden on researchers of research administration and organisation. So for example, you could streamline the application process by pulling a list of publications or employment information from a researcher's ORCID record. Once they sign in and then you can ask for permission to add information to their record and to pull information from their record. If you push that information to the record, you can ensure the accurate citation of a grant award. So you can put your organisation name, you can put any information about the funding program or grant numbers in there. Once that's in the ORCID record, it's then available to others to use, including the researcher's home institution. You can have real-time reporting by using our notification API, and - and this is one thing that we think is really valuable - is you can recognise your reviewers too. The workflow for recognising reviewers is very similar, the flow here is very similar to the auto-update slide. But we think it's really valuable because reviewers are performing a valuable task in ensuring the health of their discipline, it's a voluntary contribution in many cases, there is prestige attached to it. But making sure that these researchers get recognition for their contribution to the health of their discipline is vital, and this is one way to do it. It's very simple, the same way a researcher comes to review
  6. 6. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 6 of 23 grant applications, they provide their ORCID iD by signing in. Sending it via our API, so there are no mistakes, no one is typing in the ID or copying and pasting it. The funder can then embed the reviewer's ORCID iD in the review and then use the ORCID iD number and that API connection that's been created when the researcher signs in to push for review acknowledgment to the reviewer's ORCID record. From there, it can flow to institutional systems and also maybe other funders can see that this researcher has worked for your funding organisation when they apply for funds later. Other funders who were very quick to recognise this include the Wellcome Trust in the UK. This quote from Jonathon Kram I think demonstrates the perceived value, the potential of these unique identifiers for people. Which is that they can enable these forms of real-time understanding of, analytics and appreciation of scientific research efforts, collaborations, careers and contributions that up till now have been - well, in many cases have been impossible to collect. Many funders around the world are interacting with ORCID iDs. Some are requiring them for their grantees. I think some of the early ones were FCT in Portugal and Autism Speaks in the USA, who introduced their policies in 2014. We've had a number of health funders who moved ahead with those in 2015, and more funders around the world have come on board during 2016. I think it's really crucial that these IDs are not just asked for, they are used. Using them in the grant management systems, using them for downstream reporting is a really, really valuable way of helping researchers and ensuring that your systems are talking efficiently to other systems. I won't go into much detail about this, but I think one of the ways that many research funders have joined is as part of these national consortia I mentioned earlier. One of the benefits of this is that the cost comes down; from an individual organisation, the cost of
  7. 7. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 7 of 23 membership is higher. When you get an economy of scale, when we have a consortium membership, it helps to reduce the price. It helps to demonstrate for funders that they are part of the community in that consortium, they get local support, show common cause with their community and we find that it actually means that the local institutions are more likely to choose to interact with ORCID iDs coming between the systems when they're part of a common organisation working together, defining how they would like to use ORCID iDs. Getting started with using ORCID iDs is very simple. If you have a grant management system, you can integrate it. Set up a webinar with our talk team, decide how and when you would like to use ORCID iDs. Is it during applications? is it for reviewers? Can you pull information from the ORCID record to make it more efficient? Can you collect permissions to push information into the ORCID record? If you do that, then you can push awards, you can push reviews and you can continue to access the researcher's ORCID record and to pull up dates from that, again, making research reporting that much easier for your researchers. Technically it's actually pretty simple. We use two standard web technologies; OAuth for authentication and REST for API calls. These are well-known, your developers will be familiar with these and comfortable with using them. Integrating a field for an identifier and the sources of that information to your database, again, is not a difficult task. But I think the second point here, socially, it is absolutely vital that researchers are engaged in the process. So be prepared to communicate. I think that's much more challenging than the technical implementation. We do provide a lot of support, both for the technical aspects of this, using our APIs we have detailed and open documentation. But we also provide a lot of support in communicating with researchers, examples where other funders have engaged with their researchers,
  8. 8. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 8 of 23 case studies of what they have done. So if you have any questions, going to members.orcid.org is a great way to start looking for answers. Of course, our support team are always available. We've also launched a program called Collect & Connect. This is to make sure that researchers always have a familiar experience when they encounter an ORCID. They understand how it's being used and it's very easy for integrators, whatever the system they are using, to communicate to researchers why they're using ORCID iDs and how they're using ORCID iDs. We think this familiarity and this consistent experience will really help researchers to understand and encourage them to engage with this initiative. But crucially - this is my last slide, but I just want to finish on a few points. I think that, don't underestimate the power that funders have to drive good practice, to change behaviour for the better. To lead by example by increasing the efficiency of research communication and the communication between systems and between people. To share that data by making funding and grant award information publicly available on an open system, that data is available for re-use. By pulling data in from open community systems like ORCID, re-using that data, it adds efficiency, it means the data is cleaner because it's not being typed in. I think - and this goes back to the point I made a few slides ago about communication - tell the community what data you need them to be providing to you and listen to their needs, so that you can start pushing information out. That way it's a two-way flow, it's seen as a partnership, and it helps to cement that good practice and the benefits of unique identifiers for researchers across the whole research ecosystem. Natasha Simons: Thanks very much, Josh, for that excellent overview of ORCID and how funders can make best use of its functionality. There are no questions in the question pod for the moment. So I think we might move onto our next speaker, who is Sarah Townsend from MBIE in New Zealand.
  9. 9. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 9 of 23 Sarah Townsend: As Natasha has already said, I'm currently at MBIE in New Zealand, which is quite convenient for this webinar as most of my UK colleagues are probably asleep right now. But I did formerly work for Research Councils UK and finished there in December. I'm going to talk to you a bit about RCUK's integration with ORCID, what we did, how we did it, and I'll outline some of the challenges that we faced along the way. I'm going to start off with the timeline of how we got to where we are now. A key date for us was June 2015, this is when the UK ORCID consortium was launched by Jisc in the UK. There had been lots of discussions prior to this time, but this was a good moment to really get things moving. The UK ORCID consortium has offered reduced membership fees for universities in the UK, but RCUK also made use of that and became a member under that consortium. Shortly after that point, in December 2015, RCUK finally became members of ORCID after having talked about it for quite some time. That was important, because obviously, it gave us access to the member API and allowed us to actually get the work done, to integrate ORCID with our grants system, which is called Je-S, which stands for the Joint Electronic Submissions System. We finally got that integration live in May 2015. The Je-S system is used by the vast majority of applicants applying to the Research Councils for funding, so most of our researchers will come through that platform. The important thing to note there is that we actually integrated ORCID at the [accounts] stage. The reason why that was important is because it actually means that, for one, you don't have to wait until someone is coming to apply for a research grant. They can actually log-in at any point and connect their ORCID iD to their Je-S account. But it also means that then that information will proliferate across any activity that those researchers have had in our system. So whether they've been reviewers for us,
  10. 10. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 10 of 23 whether they've applied to us in the past, that's all captured with that one integration. Then to take that a step further, in October 2015, we started publishing ORCID iDs in the RCUK Gateway to Research. The Gateway to Research is a public website accessible to anyone. You can log-on there and you can see information about anything that the Research Councils have funded. By pushing the ORCID iDs out through GTR, we're now connecting that information against all of the grant details that are out there publicly already. That's for awards against researchers on a number of roles, so if they're a co-investigator, a fellow, training grant holder, student or supervisor, that all displays in the Gateway to Research. I'll show you a slide later on that actually - so you can see how that looks in our system. So this should make our funded researchers' activities much easier to discover, we hope. This is actually how the integration with our grants system looks. At the top level there, you've got Je-S requesting permission from the user for the following scopes. Whilst we're only collecting the authenticated ORCID iD at this point, we do also collect the permission tokens for pushing and pulling data as well. Because the plan, and obviously, the ambition, is that later down the line we will build more workflows to be able to actually pull data in and to push to ORCID records. So it made sense to us to collect that all in one go, and we felt that our users would be more accepting of that, than having to go back out to them once we've developed further workflows. So as you can see, that then means that within the grant system, we hold the actual ORCID iD itself and the authentication code for those requested scopes above. That then gets pushed out to our publicly facing website through our reporting tools. So that's where we are now.
  11. 11. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 11 of 23 This next slide shows where we want to be in the future. So obviously, a key thing for us in next steps is actually pushing authenticated grant information to our users' ORCID records. I will go - when I talk a bit more about the challenges, we have faced quite a few challenges in that our IT infrastructure is quite out of date, so it's not as smooth a road as we would like to be able to do that push of information. At the moment, it's something that we very much want to do, but we're still trying to work out exactly how to do that. The other slight complication that we have is between Je-S and GTR, we do do some manipulation with the data, so there may be some records that we need to keep confidential. So we do want to make sure that anything that is displayed within the ORCID registry reflects what we already have publicly on our Gateway to Research site. We did quite a lot of communications to promote our integration with ORCID. As you can see, this is a page on the RCUK website and there's links there to a number of blog posts that we wrote at the time. This was just to really warn both the researchers and the research organisations that this was coming and allow them to have a bit of lead-in time to prepare for that going live. One of the good things that we did within those communications was try and get a researcher's view of actually what they saw the benefits of ORCID iD to be. This has kind of been a theme through all of RCUK's approach to integrating with ORCID is about demonstrating those benefits to researchers. As well as obviously, we know as funders that we will take a lot of benefit from ORCID in the long term. We really wanted to show that this was a researcher-led initiative, and I think this case study helped to illustrate that. I think more case studies like this would be really useful. So here's just a few figures. In terms of Research Councils, we put out about 3 billion in research funding each year, and that's across all of the academic disciplines, from the arts and humanities through to medical, biological, environmental and social. We handle about 7000
  12. 12. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 12 of 23 applications per year across those disciplines and that results in about 2500 research awards being granted. So then looking at our ORCID integration, we already have 11,620 ORCID iDs connected to contacts in our grants system. So that represents ORCID iDs on about 20 per cent of all of our data held in that system, and about 4 per cent of all funded awards. Because obviously, we have ORCID iDs against unfunded awards and also against reviewers and any other activity that takes place within that system. Then looking at how that's represented in the Gateway to Research, we have 2430 people with an ORCID iD published in the Gateway to Research. This means that an ORCID iD is actually associated with 7130 projects in GTR and around over 56,000 research outcomes. So I think the numbers that we're seeing are quite positive. This is just to give you a feel for how that actually looks in the Gateway to Research. As you see, we've got some information about a researcher here. You'll see their ORCID iD displayed on the screen alongside their name. It's important that that's a hyperlink as well, so that would actually take anyone on the website straight to this person's ORCID record on the ORCID website. It's important to have that link through. This is another screen from the Gateway to Research. By holding the ORCID iD at the person account level in our system, we're able to connect that person to all the interactions they've had with the research councils. This also means that when their ORCID iD is published in the Gateway to Research, we get a public picture of all the funding they've received, including legacy data. In this example, I used Prof Donnison's ORCID iD to search the GTR database. These results show me that he's had a very active career, going right back to 2006. He's been involved with 39 projects from three different funders, three different research councils, 17 times as a principal investigator, 15 times as a co-investigator and seven times
  13. 13. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 13 of 23 as a training grant holder. He is associated with 345 outcomes as a result of those awards. This is all information that I'm able to drill down more into by clicking on the links in GTR if I want to find out more. This all starts to build a picture of a person's research career and their connections to other people involved with those awards and research outcomes that have been delivered from those grants. This information is all publicly available and can also be exported through CSV for further analysis. I wanted to give you some information about the types of people that are connecting their ORCID iD with our grants system. I'll talk a bit more about mandate versus no mandate later on, but the approach that Research Councils have taken is to widely encourage the uptake of ORCID at this stage, rather than make it a mandatory requirement. Therefore, it's quite important - well, quite useful to look at actually who has chosen to connect their ORCID iD with our system. Looking at this slide, we can see that the largest proportion of role types with an ORCID iD are co- and principal investigators, which is perhaps not surprising given that they make up a large majority of our applicants. If we actually look at the percentage of each role type of people who have an ORCID iD for that role type, versus those that don't, we see that researcher co-investigators and fellows are far more likely to have connected their ORCID iD with the Je-S system. Looking at discipline - and this data was taken directly from the Gateway to Research - showing the principal applicants by research council with an ORCID iD as a percentage of all the records that we hold in GTR. This slide shows us that uptake is most significant amongst principal applicants in the science and technology and the biological and biosciences and natural environment discipline areas. The uptake appears to be lowest amongst applicants in the economic and social research [inaudible]. I did take a look also at age and gender. Primarily there isn't a huge amount to be said about who is connecting ORCID iDs by age and
  14. 14. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 14 of 23 gender, the differences are quite small. But looking at our data, the average age of researcher co-investigators who have connected their ORCID iDs with Je-S is around 38 years old, compared to PIs who are about 45 years old on average, so not a huge difference. Similarly, looking at the percentage of women that have connected an ORCID iD to Je-S versus the percentage of men that have connected their ORCID iD to Je-S and those that haven't, we don't see a huge amount of difference there. So it seems that actually career stage and the type of discipline that you're in has the biggest impact on whether or not you're likely to have connected your ID to Je-S at this stage, whilst it's not a mandatory requirement. We might be able to use this information, for example, to do some more targeted comms in those discipline areas that are more under-represented. I'll talk a little bit about some of the challenges that we encountered. The big question is around whether or not to mandate. This was one of the more difficult issues that we had to address. Firstly, we had to consider what mandating ORCID really meant for us. For RCUK, it meant that as a condition of applying for funding from RCUK through our online grants submission system, applicants would have been required to have an ORCID iD. When a researcher registers for an ORCID iD, they consent to the processing of our data. We took the stance, if RCUK as a funder mandated that all applicants must register for an ORCID iD in order to obtain funding from us, that it could be argued that it would not always be possible to establish the consent of the researcher has been freely given. Other questions we had were, should we apply this to all of our funds? Should we apply this to all applicants or just principal applicants? There were lots of questions that we had to think through. We obviously recognised the benefits in mandating ORCID, in that we
  15. 15. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 15 of 23 would have seen a sharp uptake of ORCID iDs and it also would have meant that the data in GTR was much more comprehensive. So on balance, it's not a decision that we took lightly, we considered many angles of the argument and we also sought legal advice on the data protection issues. At this stage, we took the decision not to make it a mandatory requirement. We felt that at this stage, whilst the benefits to researchers are still slightly further away, that it was not a proportionate approach to take. But in the meantime, we felt it was more appropriate to focus on promoting and encouraging the uptake of ORCID iDs by developing the workflows that will create short term benefits and contribute towards some of the longer-term goals that we hope to see. In that way, we hope the researchers will feel more engaged and continue to make connections between their ORCID iD and the systems they interact with. We felt strongly that it's not enough for researchers to simply claim an ID, we obviously want to encourage them to use it. We felt our ability to influence that could be degraded if they felt in any way disengaged. But we're seeing some really positive numbers in terms of ORCID iDs being connected, as I've already shown you, without a mandate. There are other things happening in the UK that may have an impact on this. The Higher Education Funding Council for England is currently consulting on how to implement the next Research Excellence Framework, which is broadly equivalent to the ERA in Australia and the PBRF in New Zealand. One of the questions on that consultation is welcoming views on arguments for and against mandating ORCID. So it will be interesting to see the results from that consultation. Effectively, if HEFCE decides to mandate ORCID, then it will encompass the vast majority of Research Councils researchers anyhow and we would expect to see fairly comprehensive coverage across the UK research base as a result. But it's also worth noting that
  16. 16. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 16 of 23 the next REF exercise won't run until 2021, so we shouldn't obviously rest on our laurels until then. The other major hurdle that we encountered was limitations with our current IT estate, which I alluded to earlier. That estate is quite out of date and we found that it would have been very costly and time consuming to get our current system to be able to provide the sort of system interoperability that we wanted to be able to deliver. It's something that Research Councils UK are still grappling with. We have yet to determine a clear solution, but we're continuing to explore different avenues, for example looking at whether we can create a module that sits between GTR and ORCID that can do the push of data. But we're pleased with what's been developed to date and we hope we can continue to build on that, particularly the push of data from RCUK to ORCID, which is a clear goal that we would like to deliver. Just some things that I would share based on RCUK's experience. The first thing is about keeping things simple and prioritising requirements. I think what I saw with RCUK is that in the initial excitement about ORCID and all the things we could do with it, we perhaps lacked some clarity and that meant that we dragged our heels a little bit and it took us a bit longer to become members and build the integration that we would have liked. But once we were able to focus down to a single system and aim to start capturing just the authenticated IDs in the first instance, we were able to make good progress after that time. So I would just say, think about what you want to achieve and try and break it up into manageable chunks. We started with the collection of authenticated IDs and we then moved onto publishing them. The next logical step for us would be writing grant information to ORCID, and further down the line, looking to read data from ORCID to re-use in grant applications.
  17. 17. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 17 of 23 The other tip I'd have is to make sure you sort through what your next steps are going to be upfront. Whilst we've not developed the functionality to read or write data from ORCID as yet, we wanted to make sure that we'd collected those permission scopes in the initial integration. As I said earlier, we felt users would be more likely to accept that in one go, rather than in dribs and drabs. So we have essentially kept the door open to be able to do this upstream without having to go back out to researchers again. We found there were a few things that we had to re-work as and when we realised what we wanted to implement. So just to think through what you think that end goal is going to be and make sure that you build that up front. The third tip that I would have is around building workflows that actually create benefits for researchers. This sort of mirrors some of what Josh said in his slides. But as funders, along with publishers, research organisations and others, we're authoritative sources of information, so we should all focus on building workflows that can push this information to ORCID. If we all make a concerted effort to put in place the infrastructure to make those connections across the system, we'll all benefit in the longer term and we can start to pull information for analysis and re-use further down the line. My final tip is around talking to the community and telling them what you're up to. A big piece of feedback we have from research offices in the UK was to give them a decent lead-in time before we announced our ORCID integration. The universities have a big role to play in encouraging their academics to get an ORCID iD. They also wanted to be in a position where they could build ORCID integration into their own back office systems. So we were able to help them to prepare for the RCUK integration by letting them know early that we were working towards this and send out signals for when they would expect this to go live.
  18. 18. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 18 of 23 I think ORCID is a community effort. I'd encourage more events like this webinar so that funders can discuss opportunities and barriers in integrating with ORCID and share those amongst us and talk about how we can accelerate the adoption and use of ORCID iDs. In the UK, there's been several consortium meet-ups. These have been a good vehicle for hearing about the progress being made and the types of issues that people are encountering. I think there's more that we can do in that space. So I will finish there and hand back over to Natasha. Natasha Simons: Thank you very much, Sarah. That was a very comprehensive and well-considered presentation. There is one question in the question pod from [Jason Gush]. Jason: Sarah, you mentioned that RCUK had sought legal advice about [the data protection] Sarah Townsend: Yep. Jason: Can - are you able to tell us anything about what that advice resulted in the UK context? Sarah Townsend: Yep. I've actually got some of it in front of me, which is useful. I think essentially what I would say is this isn't black and white, it's a grey area. The legal advice certainly didn't tell us that we couldn't mandate ORCID, by any means. In fact, I think in the end our decision was more driven by wanting to incentivise and encourage researchers to get engaged with this initiative. Feeling that whilst we were just collecting the IDs in a closed-off system, that we weren't really able to demonstrate the benefits. But the key areas that we asked for legal advice on was around consent for how a person's data will be processed. In that it should be freely given, specific and informed. The feedback they gave us is that where a researcher - their only source of funding that was available, it could be argued that that's Research Councils UK, then you could say that it would be difficult to ascertain that their consent was freely given.
  19. 19. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 19 of 23 Even then, having said that, they also - the advice essentially said that the data being shared is minimal, it's not sensitive or personal data. So the overall view was that processing does not unfairly prejudice the researcher's rights and that this would be - this would constitute a legitimate interest. So as I say, kind of not completely black and white there, but they certainly weren't advising us that we couldn't do it. The other area that we specifically sought advice in was the safe harbour regime. To which the feedback - and obviously, things have moved on since we originally got this - but the feedback was that it's not recommended that the safe harbour is used as an avenue of protection for transfers of data outside the EEA. This was obviously relevant for us in the UK. But ORCID essentially anyway was not eligible to sign up to safe harbour and the that the trustee certification scheme, which ORCID refer to in their privacy policy, is not formally recognised, however it does demonstrate ORCID's data protection awareness. So essentially, they were happy and confident that ORCID was on top of this. Again, nothing in their advice that said you absolutely shouldn't do this. I hope that helps. Natasha Simons: Thanks very much, Sarah. We will move on now to the presentation from Dr Richard Ikeda from the NIH. Richard Ikeda: Thank you, Natasha. The NIH is not quite as far along as Sarah is in terms of the integration of ORCID, but we're headed in that direction. I could tell you a little bit about NIH to begin with and then how we're integrating ORCID iDs into our workflow. As I said, the National Institutes of Health is the steward for medical and behavioural research for the United States. Its mission is to perceive science in terms of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behaviour of living systems and to apply this scientific knowledge to extend healthy life and to reduce the burden of illness. So how do we do this?
  20. 20. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 20 of 23 Well, as a part of the United States Government, we're buried within an administration or hierarchy, which means that we're part of the Department of Health and Human Services and we're one of 11 agencies within the Department. The National Insitutes of Health, though, is in itself pretty complex. The important part of our name is that we're the National Institutes - plural - of Health. As you can see from this slide, we've got 27 different institutes with different missions in terms of their focus for health and science. Anywhere from basic science with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, to the National Institute of Aging to the National Cancer Institute, National Eye Institute, so we all have our individual missions. The NIH in itself has two missions. Its first is to do research within its own campus, which is shown on the left-hand side of this slide. We have on campus about 6000 active scientists working on their own research projects and we spend about 10 per cent of the NIH budget on intramural research. However, 90 per cent - or actually, 80 per cent of our budget goes out to support research at institutions across the nation and across the globe. We support currently about 4000 different institutions, be it universities, research institutions, hospitals, et cetera. We have about 300,000 scientists supported on these research grants and it amounts to about 80 per cent of the NIH budget. What this means is that the NIH gets about 100,000 applications a year, we fund about 13,000 of those on a competitive basis, and another 37,000 or so on a continuing basis. So we have quite a big portfolio of funded research grants that go out to the different universities and hospitals and research institutes. You can see here in this slide our operating budget, which amounts to $32 billion a year. Research projects amount to 55 per cent of that budget. We then have intramural research contracts, research
  21. 21. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 21 of 23 centres. We also have training; research training, career development and research management support. But I think what's important to this topic is how do we use or capture ORCID identifiers and how do we envisage using it? As I said previously, we're not as far along as Sarah is in terms of collecting and using ORCID iDs. Our initial attempt was to bring in - well, let's back up a second. To use and to apply to NIH, you have to create a personal profile when you get a log-in to the NIH system. Since I couldn't use someone else's profile, I had to use my own profile, which isn't complete. But this is what it looks like within the system. We collect personal information including name and ID, the demographics, your employment with each [unclear] and your education. We do this because it's easier for us to associate all your applications and grants to a person profile instead of trying to track person profiles through each individual application. This has served us well in terms of being able to automate processes, including our recently rolled-out ASSIST function which allows for people to apply online, and by logging into that application system, we can pre-populate personal information from the ID that's used. Well, that's a long-winded introduction. But what we have here in this left-hand corner, the personal profile, is a person ID which NIH assigns. Since NIH is a little older than ORCID, our profile IDs go back a little farther. We have the ability to collect an ORCID iD, but currently we collect it from a profile system called SciENcv. This was originally envisioned as a federal - from the US Government - a federal profile system which would allow scientists and researchers to put their profile in at one point and then allow each of the agencies to download their CV or biography without having additional information added. Its adoption, however, hasn't been going very quickly. So we're now looking into actually directly accessing ORCID iDs and allowing our
  22. 22. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 22 of 23 researchers to populate them within their personal profile within the NIH commons itself. So our vision is to try and use these to basically demonstrate the effectiveness and impact of NIH-sponsored research. In just an example of what we can do now, we've been using things such as a relative citation ratio, which measures how many times a publication has been cited in relation to the citation rate for its own field. This is important because we're trying to show that the impact of NIH grants of research is higher than the norm. We do this by looking simply at those publications where we can get an association between the publication and the grant. This has been simplified by a requirement that PIs, or principal investigators, on a grant actually must associate that grant number with the publication, or risk losing funding. This has allowed us to look at publications that cite grant support. In this example, we see that in PubMed, we have about 1.5 million papers that cite NIH publications and about 12 million that don't. The relative citation rate for NIH papers is slightly higher than it is for papers in general. So this is one of the demonstrations that NIH funding provides greater impact on the whole, across most fields. We've also done things like this, where we've looked at productivity of an awardee, as a function of the amount of funding they get from the NIH. As a function of the research grant or the program project grant. What you see is that there is basically decreasing efficiencies, that once you get to a certain level of funding, your productivity does fall off. We can do this for specific grants, specific grant types. But we'd like to be able to do this kind of analysis in the one previously, for publications by authors or principal investigators that are funded by NIH. Across all of their publications, not just for those works that cite NIH support.
  23. 23. ORCID_for_funders_Audio Page 23 of 23 Right now, we're early on in our implementation. We are looking now to make sure that we have the authority to collect the ORCID iDs on a voluntary basis and we're also looking into whether we can mandate that or require it. I know that other agencies are also on that track and it may become something that becomes a decision for the federal government in general. But right now, each US agency is working on that independently. That's just a quick summary of what we've been doing and how we've been doing it, and it's open to questions. Natasha Simons: Thank you very much, Richard, that was a very good talk. Some really staggering figures in there and great to see how you're thinking of using ORCID to demonstrate the impact and effectiveness of NIH research. Thank you everybody, goodbye or goodnight depending on where you are in the world. END OF TRANSCRIPT

×