ORCID – Open Researcher and Contributor ID

Today I participated in ORCID meeting, where the current progress of the initiative and further steps have been discussed. ORCID represents a community effort to establish an open, independent registry that is adopted and embraced as the industry’s de facto standard. Their mission is to resolve the systemic name ambiguity, by means of assigning unique identifiers linkable to an individual’s research output, to enhance the scientific discovery process and improve the efficiency of funding and collaboration (from http://orcid.org/aboutus.php).

ORCID seems to be very related to LiquidPub, because they deal with research profiles, i.e. info about name, affiliation, role at primary institution, homepage, publication record, areas of expertise, collaborators, projects, awards, etc. of a researcher. Some features (e.g. selecting publications of a researcher for the individual’s publication record) sounded extremely familiar, since they were also planned in LiquidPub, and in particular, in our collaboration with ICST. Also, the IDs of researchers used for micro-credit attribution (not only for recognizing authorship in a paper, but also for a Wikipedia entry, or for a blogpost) can be a great help for defining novel metrics in ResEval tool, developed by LiquidPub.

A funny thing is that the discussion about board membership (whether it should be individual or institutional) was the longest, while there were almost no comments on technical issues (real work?:)).

The first prototype is going to be ready for this summer, and we might test the public API in LiquidPub.
If you are looking for more info – it is on ORCID private wiki (you should request the membership at http://orcid.org/memberorg-form/index.php). Alternatively, this paper provides a nice high-level overview: Credit where credit is due .


A note on the publication culture in computing research

In his article on Revisiting the publication culture in computing research Moshe Vardi, further elaborating on “why conferences in computer science are even more important than journals?” tries to answer the question “Why computer science journals are slow in reviewing” and concludes that it is because CS researchers who run those journals are slow. Why they are slow? Because they do not take editor’s job as seriously as conference chair job. So, taking into account the suggestion from the readers (in order to increase importance of the journals, they must be faster in reviewing), we face a typical chicken-or-egg problem: journals are slow, therefore less important, and they are slow because conferences are more important, which are more important because the journals are slow. Are you following?;)

Study: Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines.

Last week a colleague from Vienna made me aware of a very interesting – and extensive study on the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication.  The study is available here: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g?;pageNum=6#.

The authors summarize their report as follows:

“We describe here the results of our research conducted between 2007 and 2010. In the interest of developing a deeper understanding of how and why scholars do what they do to advance their academic fields, as well as their careers, our approach focused on finegrained analyses of faculty values and behaviors throughout the scholarly communication lifecycle, including career advancement, sharing, collaborating, informal and formal publishing, resource generation, and engaging with the public. The report is based on the responses of 160 interviewees across 45, mostly elite, research institutions in seven selected academic fields: archaeology, astrophysics, biology, economics, history, music, and political science. We concentrated on assessing scholars’ attitudes and needs as both producers and users of research results. The report is divided into eight chapters, which include a document synthesizing our research results plus seven detailed disciplinary case studies. This executive summary also includes overviews for each of the disciplinary case studies.”  (http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0kr8s78v)

The full report can be found here: http://escholarship.org/uc/cshe_fsc

Harley, Diane, Acord, Sophia Krzys, Earl-Novell, Sarah, Lawrence, Shannon, & King, C. Judson. (2010). Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines. UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education.