“This [ORCID] is the most excitinginitiative in research publishing of thedecade.”“About time! ““The initiative is definitely great andimpacts all research community.”
Background and objectives• Objectives: to gather feedback on current level of understanding and expectations of what ORCID will or should deliver• Method: an online survey (administered by the Wellcome Trust)• Fieldwork: from Thursday 7th October till Friday 29th October 2010• The results are representative of those who completed the survey only, not the whole survey universe
n=223 n=94 n=129 ORCID stakeholders Interested parties (personalised link) (open link)• Directed at those who already • Open survey posted onto theregistered their interest in ORCID ORCID.org website and also circulated• Survey link sent via a personalised to potential interested partiesemail • 129 complete questionnaires• 49% response rate
Who participated in the survey? Academic sector includes: universities, independent research institutions, hospitals, independent libraries, scholarly societies, independent researchersBase: All respondents (n=223)Q: Which sector do you primarily represent/work in?
Awareness of the ORCID initiative in your community -Organisation type (%) *Funding agencies - small sample size (n=9)Base: All respondents (n=223), Academic (n=118), Publishers (n=43), Commercial institutions (n=23), Funding agencies (n=9)Q: Would you say that the ORCID initiative is currently well known in your community?
“Dont go for the pay model. Dont go forthe pay model. Dont go for the paymodel(…).”“Yes, I believe one should pay forvaluable information.”
Willingness to pay for ORCID services – Organisation type (%) *Funding agencies - small sample size (n=9)Base: All respondents (n=223), Academic (n=118), Publishers (n=43), Commercial institutions (n=23), Funding agencies (n=9)Q: If the services you require were available, would you consider paying for some/all of its services e.g. via a membership fee or afee-for service system?
Alternative ways of funding ORCID – Main themes Universities Charge for added value Donations Advertising Keep it simple Charge for large Funding agencies Publishers scale useBase: All who are not likely to pay for ORCID services and answered open ended question Q9 (n=57)Q: Can you suggest alternative ways in which ORCID initiative can be funded in longer terms?
Alternative ways of funding ORCID – Verbatim examples“Charge the publishers who are the ones most likely to benefit.”“Publishers should pay a tax per article to ORCID, and in return get data topopulate their systems.”“Universities would clearly pay to have access to these data. Most of theinstitutions that we work with pay for data licenses. We then use those data licensesto populate our databases. The data themselves are not intrinsically useful to us as acompany, their worth is to the university/research institution. Hence, there is a largermarket by licensing many universities rather than one company.”“Funding agencies, groups like OCLC or Library of Congress or Google shouldprovide funding. If you charge individual or departmental fees then you wont haveeveryone; if you dont have everyone then you have nothing.”“For the longer term, I think ORCID could be funded through charging for large-scale queries to the system (e.g. the api). One could imagine providinginstitutional aggregate measures or even information to funding bodies at thecountry level using ORCID information.”
Would ORCID profile information be valuable if not free and open?“Yes, still valuable. The time has comefor author disambiguation!”“Possibly, depends on how muchresearchers will get out of it. ”“No! The system needs to beuniversal to really reach its goal.Otherwise only minority will use it(…).”
Would ORCID profile information be valuable if not free and open? n=120 n=119 n=45 circa circa circa NO POSSIBLY YESBase: All respondents who answered open ended question Q10 (n=198)Q: If ORCID profile data for researchers were not freely and openly accessible, would it still be valuable for your purposes?
Would ORCID profile information be valuable if not free and open? ‘No’ (top 5 themes) n=120 circa Open system is be,er / be,er quality data / must be open for everyone to use n=32 Free / cheap / open service means more people will use / subscrip>on model will limit uptake n=30 Would be of no value n=29 Should be free / no subscrip>on / won’t use if I have to pay n=9 Closed / subscrip>on system contradicts the idea of ORCID / science n=8 Other answers: Closed system / data is useless / inhibits search / data linking n=7, Doubt our organisation would fund it, Closed /subscription model would hamper our own projects n=3, Closed system invites legal / licensing issues / confusion n=2 Base: All respondents who answered open ended question Q10 (n=198) Q: If ORCID profile data for researchers were not freely and openly accessible, would it still be valuable for your purposes?
Would ORCID profile information be valuable if not free and open?- Verbatim examples“No, it would be virtually invisible”“Having a pay/closed system would make the system virtually useless. Lets bevery honest here, most of the point of a system like ORCID is to deal with authorsfrom non-western countries with masses of people that share the same anglicizedname. If those users cant access the system due to financial constraints, whats thepoint of implementing ORCID in the first place?”“Well, look how far you get with the current researcher ID. To make an ORCID reallyuseful it has to be open.”“No, it would not be so valuable. Thats why ORCID would be less known thanother initiatives (ISI, SCOPUS, PUBMED, etc.) and less useful for researchers to letthe people know about themselves.”“Much less valuable as it needs to be a tool not only for paying members but forthe public at large.”
Would ORCID profile information be valuable if not free and open? ‘Possibly’ (top 6 themes) n=119 circa Only of value if it was the universal standard / had cri>cal mass n=31 Would be of limited value / less useful / restric>ve n=24 Would depend on the charge / only if inexpensive / non-‐proﬁt basis n=16 Disambigua>on is the primary issue – not interested in proﬁle informa>on / other features n=13 Free disambigua>on service / pay for more advanced features n=9 Publishers / ins>tu>ons could pay subscrip>on n=9 Other answers: Author should have control over data =7, Doubt our institution / organisation would fund it n=4, If paying for data, nolimits should be placed on its use n=3, Depends n=3 Base: All respondents who answered open ended question Q10 (n=198) Q: If ORCID profile data for researchers were not freely and openly accessible, would it still be valuable for your purposes?
Would ORCID profile information be valuable if not free and open?- Verbatim examples“Yes, it would still be valuable even though probably not as comprehensive(…).”“It will only be valuable if it is as comprehensive as possible - so there needs tobe a critical mass of participants”“This would depend on the eventual uptake of the service. When there are alarge enough collection of researchers in the system and third parties referencingthe IDs the cost of licensing access may become justifiable”“Profile data to me is out of scope, so as long as I can do author disambiguationand uniquely identify authors, I dont care about the profile data”“Maybe, depends on how much researchers will get out of it. Perhaps an institutioncould pay the subscription instead of individual members, or have both options”
Would ORCID profile information be valuable if not free and open? ‘Yes’ n=45 circaYes, would s>ll be of value n=38My ins>tu>on / organisa>on would subscribe / I would ask them to subscribe n=6Closed system ensures privacy n=1Base: All respondents who answered open ended question Q10 (n=198)Q: If ORCID profile data for researchers were not freely and openly accessible, would it still be valuable for your purposes?
Would ORCID profile information be valuable if not free and open?- Verbatim examples“Yes, I believe one should pay for valuable information.”“Yes, makes the publishing business more efficient, helps save costs elsewhere”“Yes, depending on scientists recommendations for purchase based on usefulnessand ease of ORCID access.”“Yes; its a time-saving service that streamlines the grant process.”“Yes, I think my institution would subscribe to gain access.”“To avoid privacy issues, it probably has to be limited to members/subscribers only.”“For our purposes, probably would be OK given that our institution would probablybe a member. However, we would like the profile information and publication claimsdeposited for our users to be available openly to all, at least at some level.”
Key use/rationale for ORCID (top 10 themes) Author disambiguation / ability to identify unique authors with similar names n=69 31% Unification of data / link data together / ease of search / indexing n=52 24% To search for a particular author / obtain profile information / automated CVs n=39 18% Bibliometric publication analysis / publication list n=30 14% Integrate into other databases – e.g. PubMed, WoS, Scopus, arXiv, SSRN n=27 12% Access to bibliographies n=17 8% Good API / interface – reliable / good design / documentation n=16 7% To track an author – progress / publications / funding / grants / career n=13 6% To ensure the correct author gets credit / recognition / attribution n=13 6% ORCIDs simplify the submission process / articles / grants n=13 6%Base: All who answered open ended question Q6, (n=220)Q: Can you provide a description of how you would like to make use of the ORCID in your own context?
Key use/rationale for ORCID – Verbatim examples (1)Author disambiguation / ability to identify unique authors with similar names“I work for a journal, and one of our biggest problems is duplicate records inour manuscript tracking database. Having a unique ID number for researcherswould help greatly in this area.”“As an editor of an open access journal, single IDs for authors is helpful.As an independent researcher having a single online ID (Id like to use myopenid )would be quite helpful.”“Just concentrate on the assignment and disambiguation. Like in Hollywood,get a unique ID allocated and other groups can do the rest (IMDB etc).”“Unambiguously identifying authors when searching for peer reviewers; when Iclick on a name I want PubMed to actually search by ORCID rather than by name..”“An API to help disambiguate author names or normalise spellings.”
Key use/rationale for ORCID – Verbatim examples (2)Unification of data / link data together / ease of search / indexing“I am interested in developing tools for department and institution evaluationand ranking as well as quantifying differences between male and femaleresearchers in terms of publications, impact and awarded grants.”“I need a link to bind together both a library system, a national authority system,multiple institution archive systems and a national research system.”“Would love the ability to cross-search between our in-house publicationsdatabase and search indexes on authors name, to check for publications.”“Making sure the ORCID database is comprehensive. If it only covers 75% ofpeople, it wont work.”“We would allow researchers to register their ORCID identifier with our software sothat we could automatically import their research publications and other data fromORCID - this reduces rekeying activity as researchers might then be able to managetheir data in one place and not have to duplicate effort. We would also be interested inallowing researchers to upload data from our systems within universities into the ORCIDsystem.”
Key use/rationale for ORCID – Verbatim examples (3)Search for a particular author / obtain profile information / automated CVs“We would simply be adding the ids to our articles and checking that names and idsare used consistently.”“As a librarian, to be able to do a successful author search.”“I am using publication data matched to individual scientists in order to understandacademic career outcomes. Having ORCID IDs available would make this workmuch easier.”“We would like to be able to search/track our facultys publications. The ORCIDwould make it possible to positively search for all publications authored by a specificfaculty.”“I am hopeful that the names associated with ORCID can be matched with libraryauthority data to assist with collocation of materials described in library catalogs andarticle-level information.”
Maintaining ORCID profiles: Who? (%) YES (net) 73% 67% 64% 40% 35%Base: All respondents who are not individual researchers (n=220)Q: Thinking about the ORCID profile information of individual researchers, who do you believe will create and/or maintain thisinformation in the future? Don’t know answers are not shown
How useful or not useful you consider the following ORCID services to be?All (Top 7) Useful (net)Base: All respondents (n=223)Q: How useful to you/your organization do you consider the following potential ORCID services to be?
How useful or not useful you consider the following ORCID services to be?All (8-14) Useful (net)Base: All respondents (n=223)Q: How useful to you/your organization do you consider the following potential ORCID services to be?
How best we can inform you of ORCID initiative developments over thenext 12 months? “Blogs/online Webinars Conferences Mailing lists”Base: All respondents (n=223)Q: How best we can inform you of ORCID initiative developments over the next 12 months?
Further comments – Verbatim examples (1)“(…) minimize operational cost, allow duplication, distributed hosting, etc. Getlibraries involved, who are more than likely to help out here, and get the OpenSource scientific community helping out with software development. Dont leavethis to the publishers; they have shown quite inadequate in many aspects ofpublishing; author identification and citation identification two prominent examples.There is not reason to believe that after 10 years of no innovation, they can pull thisoff using their models.”“Dont get institutions (universities etc) involved. Do this through the journals/conferences and participation will follow.”“Keep it simple. Stay true to the published mission statement. Registration mustbe free for authors. Clearly publish how privacy is affected and protected by thiseffort.”“This has the potential to be an essential new development, but it will have tobecome the single community standard, or at least map 100% to other suchinitiatives.”Base: All respondents who answered open ended question Q15 (n=60)Q: Finally, if there are any further comments you would like to give, please use the box below.
Further comments – Verbatim examples (2)“Please go ahead with your initiative ”“The initiative is definitely great and impacts all research community.Therefore, you have a lot of stakeholders. But, with such a huge board and amountof people involved you risk to become unmanageable (and also it costs a lot,probably). So, try to keep the core small and put all others in "watchers" that canstep up and contribute, participate in discussions, but are not necessarily involvedin the decision”“Were 100% behind this - it will be a hugely significant development foracademic publishing. Good luck!”“ORCID needs to develop its product portfolio and then work our how it shouldmarket itself and make it be known that it is not an agency of a publisher - thatit is a not-for-profit initiative that is doing something that for the benefit of allthose involved in supporting the research process. There might need to besome work done to be explicit about what the publishers will get out of this”Base: All respondents who answered open ended question Q15 (n=60)Q: Finally, if there are any further comments you would like to give, please use the box below.