In the second of two posts on persistent identifiers in scholarly communications, Phill Jones and Alice Meadows share information about a new cost-benefit analysis showing the value of widespread PID adoption
Whether or not you attended this year’s 24-hour online party for persistent identifiers, aka PIDapalooza 2021, here’s your chance to read all about it!
Recognizing the many ways that researchers (and others) contribute to science and scholarship has historically been challenging but we now have options, including CRediT and ORCID.
Persistent identifiers (PIDs) are an essential part of the open research infrastructure, but need widespread adoption to be effective. Learn about Jisc’s plans to increase adoption through a national PID consortium in this post by Alice Meadows.
What does a strong and sustainable research infrastructure look like? How close are we to building one? What improvements are needed? This summary of a recent SSP webinar addresses these questions and more.
The structural transition wrought by the internet continues to transform the journal-centric model of scholarly publishing into a researcher-centric model of scholarly communication. Success requires engagement with researcher identity, which is a struggle even for most of the largest publishing houses. Who is competing to own researcher identity and how can other publishers engage this vital role?
The third PIDapalooza took place in Dublin in late January. Alice Meadows shares some of her thoughts on this festival of open identifiers.
The last morning of this year’s Fiesole Library Collection Retreat focused on the important topic of collaboration to improve scholarship. Read more in today’s post from Alice Meadows.
Publishers are understandably concerned about piracy, but the STM/NISO initiative RA21 “to align and simplify pathways to subscribed content across participating scientific platforms” has scoped its problem the wrong way. Simply put: It’s not about security. It’s about identity. Every individual should be in control of their own identity. Can RA21 realize its potential to serve the broader interests of scientists and academia, not just the understandable objectives of publishers and vendors?
Getting researcher buy-in to new tools and systems can be challenging – even when those tools are intended to help free them of administrative burden. A community approach, such as the publisher-led initiative to require ORCID iDs for authors, can be very effective.
PIDapalooza, the first ever festival of persistent identifiers, set out not only to bring together the creators and users of PIDs, but also to make PIDs cool. Did it succeed? Find out in this report on the event from Alice Meadows and Phill Jones
We typically classify publishers as Old Media and New Media, but now we have companies that are part of a new paradigm, the Dat Media company. Such companies sit above both Old and New, studying patterns in usage and in the databases of information aggregated by publishers.
Think persistent identifiers are a bit boring? Think again! PIDapalooza, the first open festival of persistent identifiers, aims to challenge that view. Find out more, including how you can get involved.
While many of the traditional publishing tasks remain intact, new tasks that are much more technical in nature have changed the skill sets required to be scholarly publishers. As new and developing standards and services such as Funder Identification, ORCID, CHORUS, and more come online, publishers and their vendors must integrate when they would rather innovate. The trick is in realizing where integration allows more innovation.
A group of eight publishers today announced that, during 2016, they will begin requiring authors to use an ORCID identifier (iD) during the publication process. The first to do so is The Royal Society, which has introduced this requirement beginning January 1, 2016. In this interview, their Publishing Director, Stuart Taylor, explains why.