Scientometrics

, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp 437–453 | Cite as

Tracking researchers and their outputs: new insights from ORCIDs

  • Jan Youtie
  • Stephen Carley
  • Alan L. Porter
  • Philip Shapira
Article

Abstract

The ability to accurately identify scholarly authors is central to bibliometric analysis. Efforts to disambiguate author names using algorithms or national or societal registries become less effective with increases in the number of publications from China and other nations where shared and similar names are prevalent. This work analyzes the adoption and integration of an open source, cross-national identification system, the Open Researcher and Contributor ID system (ORCID), in Web of Science metadata. Results at the article level show greater adoption, to date, of the ORCID identifier in Europe as compared with Asia and the US. Focusing analysis on individual highly cited researchers with the shared Chinese surname “Wang,” results indicate limitations in the adoption of ORCID. The mechanisms for integrating ORCID identifiers into articles also come into question in an analysis of co-authors of one particular highly cited researcher who have varying percentages of articles with ORCID identifiers attached. These results suggest that systematic variations in adoption and integration of ORCID into publication metadata should be considered in any bibliometric analysis based on it.

Keywords

Author disambiguation ORCID Web of Science 

References

  1. Altman, M., Conlon, M., Cristan, A. L., Dawson, L., Dunham, J., Hickey, T., & Smart, L. (2014). Registering researchers in authority files. OCLC Research.Google Scholar
  2. Anstey, A. (2014). How can we be certain who authors really are? Why ORCID is important to the British Journal of Dermatology. British Journal of Dermatology, 171(4), 679–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bohannon, J. (2017). Vast set of public CVs reveals the world’s most migratory scientists. Science. doi:10.1126/science.aal1189.Google Scholar
  4. Butler, D. (2012). Scientists: Your number is up: ORCID scheme will give researchers unique identifiers to improve tracking of publications. Nature, 485(7400), 564–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clement, G. (2014). ORCID-opoly, Where High-touch Meets High-Tech: Learning and Outreach efforts in support of ORCID Integration at Texas A&M. ORCID Outreach Conference, May 22–24, 2014. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  6. Fenner, M. (2011). ORCID: unique identifiers for authors and contributors. Information Standards Quarterly, 23(3), 10–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fenner, M., Gómez, C. G., & Thorisson, G. (2011). Collective action for the open researcher & contributor ID (Orcid). Serials, 24(3).Google Scholar
  8. Garfield, E. (1969). British quest for uniqueness versus American egocentrism. Nature, 223, 763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gulpers, J. (2016, February 15). Creating your ORCID. Retrieved from https://www.eur.nl/fileadmin/ASSETS/UB/Training___Support/e-learning/researchimpacts/Handout_Orcid.pdf.
  10. Haak, L (2016, January). Publishers start requiring ORCID IDs. Retrieved from https://orcid.org/blog/2016/01/07/publishers-start-requiring-orcid-ids.
  11. Haak, L. L., Baker, D., Ginther, D. K., Gordon, G. J., Probus, M. A., Kannankutty, N., et al. (2012a). Standards and infrastructure for innovation data exchange. Science, 338(6104), 196–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haak, L. L., Fenner, M., Paglione, L., Pentz, E., & Ratner, H. (2012b). ORCID: a system to uniquely identify researchers. Learned Publishing, 25(4), 259–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kelley, R. P. (1984). Blocking Considerations for Record Linkage Under Conditions of Uncertainty. In Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, 602–605.Google Scholar
  14. Li, G. C., Lai, R., D’Amour, A., Doolin, D. M., Sun, Y., Torvik, V. I., et al. (2014). Disambiguation and co-authorship networks of the US patent inventor database (1975–2010). Research Policy, 43(6), 941–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meadows, A. (2016). Everything you ever wanted know about ORCID… but were afraid to ask. College & Research Libraries News77(1), 23-30.Google Scholar
  16. Mitra, P., Kang, J., Lee, D., & On, B. W. (2005). Comparative study of name disambiguation problem using a scalable blocking-based framework. In Digital Libraries, 2005. JCDL’05. Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on (pp. 344-353). IEEE.Google Scholar
  17. Number of ORCID IDs (2017, February 17). Retrieved from http://support.orcid.org/knowledgebase/articles/150557-number-of-orcid-ids.
  18. ResearcherID & ORCID Integration (2017, January). Retrieved from http://wokinfo.com/researcherid/integration/.
  19. Rosenkrantz de Lasson, J. (2015, February 15). Why ORCID and ResearcherID When We Have Google Scholar? [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.jakobrdl.dk/blog/2015/02/why-orcid-and-researcherid-when-we-have-google-scholar.
  20. Smalheiser, N. R., & Torvik, V. I. (2009). Author name disambiguation. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Strotmann, A., & Zhao, D. (2012). Author name disambiguation: What difference does it make in author-based citation analysis? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(9), 1820–1833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tang, L., & Walsh, J. P. (2010). Bibliometric fingerprints: name disambiguation based on approximate structure equivalence of cognitive maps. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0196-6.Google Scholar
  23. Thomas, W. J., Chen, B., & Clement, G. (2015). ORCID Identifiers: Planned and Potential Uses by Associations, Publishers, and Librarians. The Serials Librarian, 68(1–4), 332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. What is Orcid? (2016, March). Retrieved from http://orcid.org/content/about-orcid.
  25. Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Youtie
    • 1
  • Stephen Carley
    • 2
    • 3
  • Alan L. Porter
    • 2
    • 3
  • Philip Shapira
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Enterprise Innovation InstituteGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Search TechnologyNorcrossUSA
  3. 3.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  4. 4.Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business SchoolUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations