Na,onal Author IDs: are they an advantage for ORCID implementa,on? A disadvantage? They have no impact whatsoever? What if they’re only halfway through its implementa,on/comple,on?
Some ORCID/Na.onal Author IDs issues: -‐ overlapping -‐ funding/business models -‐ implementa,on strategy/de-‐duplica,on -‐ authors covered on na,onality or aﬃlia,on criteria?
Some issues on ORCID on a Na.onal Scale: ORCID implementa,on on a na,onal scale: small vs big countries (pop/researcher count, not size) – business model & ,meschedules
Some issues on ORCID on a Na.onal Scale: -‐ Na,onal research informa,on mgt oﬃces (such as DFG in Germany, FECYT in Spain, SURF in The Netherlands, DEFF in Denmark or JISC in the UK) obvious candidates for carrying out ORCID implementa,on. -‐ Na,onal CRISs such as NARCIS a poten,ally very useful tool (plus CRIS networks), CVN ini,a,ve in Spain could also be used for the purpose -‐ Could IRs play a role where no (na,onal/ins,tu,onal) CRISs are available
-‐ Dissemina,on and communica,on eﬀorts cri,cal -‐ Best prac,ce iden,ﬁca,on and sharing a must -‐ Authors need to become aware of the ORCID ini,a,ve, so it should be quite a distributed implementa,on strategy even if centrally managed. -‐ It would be very useful as a result to have ORCID uptake stats available by countries, sectors, disciplines, even ins,tu,ons.