ORCID launches Auto-Update functionality in collaboration with Crossref and DataCite

orcidORCID provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes a researcher from every other researchers. Through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, ORCID supports automated linkages between the researcher and his or her professional activities ensuring that his or her work is recognized. ORCID thus provides a registry of unique researcher identifiers and a transparent method of linking research activities and outputs to these identifiers.

Last october ORCID launched an Auto-Update functionality in collaboration with Crossref and DataCite.  Until now, researchers have had to manually maintain their record, connecting new activities as they are made public.  In ORCID, that meant using Search & Link tools to claim works manually.  Researchers frequently asked:  “Why, if I include my ORCID iD when I submit a manuscript or dataset, isn’t my ORCID record “automagically” updated when the work is published?”

In order to make the Auto-Update work, researchers need to do two things:  (1) use the ORCID iD when submitting a paper or dataset, and (2) authorize Crossref and DataCite to update the ORCID record.  This permission may be revoked at any time, and researchers may also choose privacy settings for the information posted on their record.

Publishers and data centers also have two things to do: (1) collect ORCID identifiers during the submission workflow, using a process that involves authentication (not a type-in field!), and (2) embed the iD in the published paper and include the iD when submitting information to Crossref or DataCite. Upon receipt of data from a publisher or data center with a valid identifier, Crossref or DataCite can automatically push that information to the researcher’s ORCID record.

More information about how to opt out of this service can be found here: the ORCID Inbox. Source: ORCID.org

A very interesting article on this issue was written by Martin Fenner, DataCite Technical Director: Explaining the DataCite/ORCID Auto-update


Ethics in research

ethicsA post written by Sarah Tanksalvala on Thomson Reuters EndNote blog deals with the concept of ethical research. Here are a few insights.

Everyone knows plagiarism is wrong, but whatever your academic discipline, the concept of “ethical research” roams into a lot of gray areas.

For example, did you know that the number of participants, or the way you ask someone for an interview, can determine whether your research is ethical or not? Or that the scientific method is an ethical issue?

Dubious research practices can be damaging to both participants and academia, and it’s also one of the fastest ways possible to damage your reputation. When planning any research study, there are a number of things you’ll need to take into account.

Method matters

Regardless of the study, the most fundamental aspect of ethical research – unless there’s a technology failure – is sticking to the scientific method.

“If you don’t like the data, you may change your hypothesis or better yet, design a better experiment,” says Richard Hichwa (professor and senior associate vice president for research, the University of Iowa). “The thought process of ‘the hypothesis and data don’t match, so I can tweak it to make it match,’ that’s a shady perspective.”

This is important for more than reasons of academic honesty, though. If the next steps of your research involve human participants, you need to know exactly what value you’ll get from the experiment and if it warrants the risks to your participants. If your original studies were flawed or tweaked, you won’t know this.

Use your subjects wisely

If there’s no risk to a participant (such as with a survey), you have more flexibility in the number of people you choose to participate.

When you are conducting research that involves human subjects, participation must be purely voluntary, and you must avoid using language which pushes the participant to do things they might not want to do.

Even asking for an interview can be problematic if you phrase your request in a way that makes them feel obligated or pressured, such as, “I’d really appreciate it if I could interview you.”, especially when dealing with vulnerable populations. Even after they accept, you must maintain this standard of voluntary participation, so subjects know they are not obligated to go any further.

It is also crucial that you maintain the privacy and confidentiality of your subjects unless they voluntarily – and without any pressure – give you permission to record or identify them in some way.

Read more here

Wiley survey: How and why researchers share data

DataEarlier this year, Wiley conducted a survey on researchers views of data sharing.  The publisher contacted 90,000 researchers across a wide array of disciplines and received more than 2,250 responses from individuals engaged in active research programs.

“First, of the 52% of respondents who said they had made their data publicly available, the largest proportion (67%) did so via supplementary material in journals.  That subset more or less tallies with the average take-up we see at Wiley of the supporting information facility (c. 30%), but this varies considerably by discipline, and of course not everything in supporting information is data. Other ways in which researchers reported making data publicly available, such as in repositories (which are better suited to long term data management and preservation), are dwarfed by this proportion.”

See more on the Wiley Blog