For a number of reasons, I recently revisited my ORCID page in order to really get it up to date, and therefore also decided to revisit this discussion thread for a few comments:

As ORCID is a unique identifier for scientists to make discrimination easier for homonymic names, there should exist only one such ID. Information providers like Wolters Kluwer (producer of the databases of the Web of Science) try to establish there own ID-system. The need for such a system is obivious. I would definitely prefer a non-proprietary system far over that of any company.

Additionally database producers try to outsource the work of identifying the authors of earlier articles. Authors shall maintain "their" ID (and the company sells the data).

As you say, it would be great if all scholar information providers, like PubMed, Thomson Reuters, Google (not only publishers) could use the same ID instead of names. The scores would be more accurate.

I agree as well. It is often a problem to find certain author papers, when I am looking using name. ID would solve this problem.

Hi Devang, thanks for contributing.

Upgrading? How do you mean? There is also the problem of the ORCID web page only reaching for some articles and not others.

Like someone said, calculating h-index is already not consistent, between that for SCOPUS and Harzing's for example. would this ORCID solve all that?

Thanks

What is the H-index problem? And why do we need ORCID to solve it? Calculating the H-index is straight-forward and easy. Of course you need to obtain the citation frequency from an accepted database and you need to indicate which database you used when presenting your H-index, but other than that, I don't see a big problem. It's only a scientometric parameter, but at least it's calculation is completely transparent.

Indeed the comments here are educative. I am of the view that no single computational system can ever be perfect, we will always have demerits or loop holes, however that should not prevent us from trying.

I think scientist and the likes should have a world symposium on these issues and have them addressed fairly and squarely.

Hi Bjornsson, although the calculation of h-index is fairly straightforward and transparent, I think there is duplicity (or multiplicity) in the calculations, where we have SCOPUS calculating its own based on ISI indexed journals whereas Google scholar does its own calculations based on articles published online and with no regards to where the article is indexed. Like you also mentioned, rightly so, one needs to state which software was used in arriving at one's h-index. My concern as a researcher or scholar is that we must agree to have certain indices which uniformly rates every one globally based on the same yard stick. The current practice has some h-index calculations seem inferior to others, which ought not be the case.

I thus agree with Yusuf Abba's submission that a global symposium is necessary to address these and similar issues squarely. Any one with ideas if one is already scheduled? Thank you

Hi very interesting discussion. It hits on an age old problem, one of author identification. Years ago, before the web (if you can remember) Librarians used Author authority files to ensure consistent use of names and cataloguing rules to cope with culturally defined representations of names. As Libraries and their catalogues and indexes were the main sources for bibliographic data, it worked more or less. The expansion of sources of data and the number of publications which either are unaware of or ignore conventions for names has really broken the system. The challenge is to put the system back together with an appropriate ID. Similar to DOI or ISBN for people. This is well recognised of course and the worlds leading publishers have put forward ID systems, SCOPUS ID and Researcher ID and now the Open Source ORCHID which potentially unites both systems.

There are pressures on publishers to solve this problem. 1) National research assessment exercises in the UK and Australia now use bibliometric measures. The inability to automatically and accurately identify authors is an issue, which is why Reed Elsevier and Thompson Reuters have set about solving it. 2) Research analysis /bibliometrics also requires accurate Author identification. This is a growing business for research institutions and universities. No longer an obscure branch of Librarianship. 3) Lots of open source tools to present new ways of analysis use large databases and API's to generate new metrics. Again these rely on acurate author identification.

Personally I have SCOPUS / Researcher ID and / ORCHID Accounts. I think this is just starting to be recognised as a problem by researchers and developers in the wider community. See also

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Who_owns_your_profile

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Unique_Author_IDs_Time_to_raise_the_profile1

Best Wishes Matt

If you compare IDs for researchers delivered by non-profit and for-profit organizations, what are the pros and cons, I wonder.

"iDea for ORCID site?" still appears at the right side at bottom of ORCID page! There are a lot of problems to be solved out in order to be accepted as a standard from research community!

PS : @Mohammed Aliyu-Paiko, I did register at ORCID. Thanks for suggestion.

Sincerely Yours,

Ljubomir Jacic

This discussion prompted me to revisit the ORCID website. Progress appears to be slow but significant. You can now contact SCOPUS and Researcher ID using a very smooth web interface. You can add data manually and import your datas from leading databases, such as European Pubmed. There is also an Ambassador Scheme, which from recollection is new. I think when you view ORCID, the pace of development is slow yes, but look who supports it. Reed Elsevier / Thompson Reuters / Welcome Trust. These are substantial players in academic publishing.

I would always advise obtaining an ID and nurturing the data it contains as good practice in the management of your career profile. SCOPUS assign an ID but are very responsive if you want to ask them to make corrections to your institutional affiliation or publications. Researcher ID is, I think, value added. You get access to some basic metrics calculated using ISI data, a fairly good Online Profile and you can use the Basic Version of EndNote Web, which is useful. The promised full version of ORCID also looks good once it is delivered.

If you already have your publications in a bibliographic database, or RIS format, an hours work and regular maintenance should do it. BW Matt

For a number of reasons, I recently revisited my ORCID page in order to really get it up to date, and therefore also decided to revisit this discussion thread for a few comments:

I do have an ORCID page (number), but it takes time to fill it with all information needed. I agree with @Björn discussion, especially with level of automation in terms of sharing data with different researcher's social networks. Good point about CV!

We had a thread about it last year, it is attached!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_publication_identification_system_is_most_advantageous_ResearchID_ORCID_Scopus_Author_ID

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0536-9619

Yes I have ORCID (http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2616-4903) but I rarely use it! The best feature of it to mغ is the notification. When someone submit a manuscript with me name in it as co-author it notify me via email with subject "Adding ORCID to Co-Authored submission" and ask for its approval. In general, it can be useful as it provides a tool for individuals to manage their data privacy and reduce frustration, because entering data over and over again can be time-consuming, and often frustrating.

I too have an ORCID Id, but I too do not use it very frequently. I feel that ORCID and Researcher ID are still evolving and their data base is still not comparable with say, Google Scholar. Further the Scopus is not open to all researcher and requires either a institutional membership or a paid one, makes it difficult to use. Also these initiatives by Thompson Reuters need to do lot more before they can be accepted as a universally available platforms for researchers to share their publications.

Dear Dr. , Mohammed,

I have an Orcid ID and Research ID.

I think both a good idea, but in my opinion, they don’t have the same visibility and interaction of ResearchGate. Some journals ask the orcid number on the submission act ask the orcid number on the submission act.

Best Regards,

Vanessa

orcid.org/0000-0003-3831-1659

https://orcid.org/inbox

orcid.org/0000-0002-1389-7633

orcid.org/0000-0003-3831-1659

https://orcid.org/inbox

Though I have Orcid and Researcher ID accounts, I find ResearchGate for more useful and user friendly.

I do agree with @K. M. Singh. By the way, ORCID is not interactive social platform as Researchgate is.

@Ljubomir Jacic,

Thank you for agreeing with my statement, but to carry this further, I would also like to add that ResearchGate is still evolving, and ever since I joined it about 3 years back, have seen many changes. It is fine to change for making the platform better, but I think the user must be duly informed about the forthcoming change and how to handle it. The most mysterious part is the calculation of your RG score, it increases when you papers are not being read or downloaded and vice versa, funny at times. A little bit of explanation from the Admins of this site would be welcome.

Regards

I am thankful for all these discussion contributions as ORCID is now reality and required for publication in many journals. I have no ORCID ID and cannot submit anymore although I have authored more than 300 papers. Why I do not have an ORCID ID. In principal a clear identifier for authors like an ORCID number is a good idea. However, the privacy policy of ORCID is inacceptable. Please refer to their Privacy Policy, paragraph 7.4. https://orcid.org/content/orcid-privacy-policy#How_we_share_information where is written: 7.4 Government Data Requests

"If we are required by law, public safety or public policy, or we are served with a warrant, court order, or subpoena, we may provide your information, including Limited Access and Private data to regulators, enforcement agents, courts and/or other government entities. To protect the privacy interests of our users, ORCID will provide only such data as we deem necessary in the situation. To the extent allowed, we will promptly provide information about any government data requests received and accounts affected to the relevant Record Holders."

This is what keeps me away from ORCID with all of its consequences for me as scientist. If ORCID would commit itself in paragraph 7.4 that under no circumstances they would provide data for governmental use the situation would change. By the way, which government should it be? The US government? The North Korean government? The Chinese goverment? This does not become clear. Further I have to support Mrs. Schlindwein´s comment earlier in this thread. ORCID should be in the hand of a private company which ORCID is in fact.

Ten reasons to get - and use - an ORCID iD!

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/authors-update/ten-reasons-to-get-and-use-an-orcid-id!

Thank you so much dear Prof. Ljubomir Jacić sir, for sharing this amazing informative link.

Regards, Emad

orcid.org/0000-0002-5636-5901

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5636-5901

Dear Dr.Sarah Qahtan ,

Thank you so much for sharing your respected ORCID address, please try to update your profile to get more academic benefits and more visibility to your publications.

Regards, Emad

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_Publishers_are_asking_for_ORCID_iDs_while_submitting_the_paper_for_review

This discussion can be helpful.

Yes

Yes, I have. Some of journals and conferences ask you for ORCID number; therefore the joining to ORCID is good idea.

ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) is a nonproprietary alphanumeric code to uniquely identify scientific and other academic authors and contributors. It's encouraging to have one because it's becoming increasingly required to make use of it for paper submission online.

Thank you very much for your valuable information for linking ORCID.

I agree with most of researchers ^^, it is definitely worth to have it!

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anton_Vrdoljak2/publication/334811548_ORCID_iD_QR_Code/data/5d462a6ea6fdcc370a79d834/10-reasons-get-use-orcid-id-certificate.pdf

Best,