Skip to main content

Availability of ORCIDs in publications archived in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science Core Collection

Abstract

The purpose of this paper was to assess ORCID availability in articles indexed in PubMed, MEDLINE (WoS Platform), and in the Web of Science Core Collection databases. The results showed an overall increase in the percentage of references with ORCIDs in these databases over time. Nevertheless, in PubMed over the period 2012–2020, only 13.9% of the articles had at least one ORCID, and only 4.3% of the authors had an ORCID. The analysis of journals indexed in PubMed show that only about half of all journals (51.6%) allow the use of ORCIDs in their articles during the submission process. The comparison of availability of ORCIDs in PubMed and MEDLINE show higher implementation of ORCIDs in MEDLINE due to differences in the methods used to collect ORCIDs (from publisher for PubMed and from ORCID registry for MEDLINE). These results suggest that entering ORCIDs by authors during the submission process is tedious and time consuming and hinders a larger presence of ORCIDs in PubMed. This study also shows that only using ORCIDs to collect researcher output is still unreliable in these bibliographic databases. This should convince decision-makers to establish recommendations encouraging all actors involved in research to consider more frequent use of ORCIDs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Arunachalam, S., & Madhan, M. (2016). Adopting ORCID as a unique identifier will benefit all involved in scholarly communication. National Medical Journal of India, 29(4), 227–234.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Auto-updates in third-party systems: Crossref. (2018). ORCID. Retrieved November 5, 2020 from https://support.orcid.org/hc/en-us/articles/360006971293.

  3. Bello, M., & Galindo-Rueda, F. (2020). Charting the digital transformation of science: Findings from the 2018 OECD International Survey of Scientific Authors (ISSA2). Documents de travail de l’OCDE sur la science, la technologie et l’industrie, (2020/03). https://doi.org/10.1787/1b06c47c-en

  4. Boudry, C., & Chartron, G. (2017). Availability of digital object identifiers in publications archived by PubMed. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1453–1469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2225-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Boudry, C., & Durand-Barthez, M. (2020). Use of author identifier services (ORCID, ResearcherID) and academic social networks (Academia.edu, ResearchGate) by the researchers of the University of Caen Normandy (France): A case study. PLOS ONE, 15(9), e0238583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Butler, D. (2012). Scientists: your number is up: ORCID scheme will give researchers unique identifiers to improve tracking of publications. Nature News, 485(7400), 564. https://doi.org/10.1038/485564a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carter, C. B., & Blanford, C. F. (2017). All authors must now supply ORCID identifiers. Journal of Materials Science, 52(11), 6147–6149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-017-0919-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Citrome, L. (2016). Open researcher and contributor ID: ORCID now mandatory for Wiley journals. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 70(11), 884–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.12912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Craft, A. R. (2020). Managing researcher identity: Tools for researchers and librarians. Serials Review, 46(1), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2020.1720897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, scopus, Web of Science, and google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal: Official Publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 22(2), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fenner, M., & Haak, L. (2014). Unique identifiers for researchers. In Opening science (pp. 293–296). Springer. Retrieved January 23, 2017 from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_21.

  12. Gasparyan, A. Y., Akazhanov, N. A., Voronov, A. A., & Kitas, G. D. (2014). Systematic and open identification of researchers and authors: focus on open researcher and contributor ID. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 29(11), 1453–1456. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2014.29.11.1453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gorraiz, J., Melero-Fuentes, D., Gumpenberger, C., & Valderrama-Zurián, J.-C. (2016). Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Granshaw, S. I. (2019). Research identifiers: ORCID, DOI, and the issue with Wang and Smith. Photogrammetric Record, 34(167), 236–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/phor.12290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Haak, L., Donohoe, P., Kiermer, V., Atkins, H., Lees-Miller, J., & Raybould, C. (2016). ORCID iD Throughput in Publishing Workflows. Journal Article Tag Suite Conference (JATS-Con) Proceedings 2016 [Internet]. National Center for Biotechnology Information (US). Retrieved May 14, 2020 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK350150/.

  16. Haak, L. L., Fenner, M., Paglione, L., Pentz, E., & Ratner, H. (2012). ORCID: A system to uniquely identify researchers. Learned Publishing, 25(4), 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1087/20120404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Haak, L. L., Meadows, A., & Brown, J. (2018). Using ORCID, DOI, and other open identifiers in research evaluation. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Home—NLM Catalog—NCBI. (2020). Retrieved April 28, 2020 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog.

  19. Home—PubMed—NCBI. (2020). Retrieved April 28, 2020 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/.

  20. Irwin, A. N., & Rackham, D. (2017). Comparison of the time-to-indexing in PubMed between biomedical journals according to impact factor, discipline, and focus. Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy: RSAP, 13(2), 389–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2016.04.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jinha, A. E. (2010). Article 50 million: An estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing, 23(3), 258–263. https://doi.org/10.1087/20100308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Leopold, S. S. (2016). Editorial: ORCID is a wonderful (but not required) tool for authors. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 474(5), 1083–1085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4760-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mašić, I., Begić, E., Donev, D. M., Gajović, S., Gasparyan, A. Y., Jakovljević, M., et al. (2016). Sarajevo declaration on integrity and visibility of scholarly publications. Croatian Medical Journal, 57(6), 527–529. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2016.57.527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. MEDLINE, PubMed, and PMC (PubMed Central): How are they different? (2020). FAQs, Help Files, Pocket Cards, U.S. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved May 14, 2020 from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/difference.html.

  25. Memon, A. R., & Azim, M. E. (2019). Open researcher and contributor identifier and other author identifiers: Perspective from Pakistan. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 69(6), 888–891.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mering, M. (2017). Correctly linking researchers to their journal articles: An overview of unique author identifiers. Serials Review, 43(3–4), 265–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2017.1386056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mikki, S., Zygmuntowska, M., Gjesdal, Ø. L., & Al Ruwehy, H. A. (2015). Digital presence of norwegian scholars on academic network sites-where and who are they? PLoS ONE, 10(11), e0142709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Morgan, M., & Eichenlaub, N. (2018). Author identifier analysis: Name authority control in two institutional repositories. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications (Vol. 2018-September, pp. 113–116). Presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications.

  29. ORCID. (2020). Retrieved May 17, 2020 from https://orcid.org/.

  30. ORCID research repository. (2020). Retrieved April 22, 2020 from https://orcid.figshare.com/browse.

  31. Requiring ORCID in Publication Workflows: Open Letter. (2015). Retrieved May 15, 2020 from https://orcid.org/content/requiring-orcid-publication-workflows-open-letter.

  32. Rossiter, P. (2013). Linking Articles Available in Europe PMC to your ORCID. Retrieved October 27, 2020 from http://blog.europepmc.org/2013/08/linking-articles-available-in-europe.html.

  33. Support for ORCID in Publishing Systems | ORCID Members. (2020). Retrieved May 15, 2020 from https://members.orcid.org/api/vendors/publisher-tools.

  34. The Europe PMC Consortium. (2015). Europe PMC: A full-text literature database for the life sciences and platform for innovation. Nucleic Acids Research, 43, D1042–D1048. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tran, C. Y., & Lyon, J. A. (2017). Faculty use of author identifiers and researcher networking tools. College and Research Libraries, 78(2), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.2.171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Warner, S. (2010). Author identifiers in scholarly repositories. Journal of Digital Information, 11(1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Web of Science: How ORCID works are matched to Web of Science records. (2020). Retrieved April 30, 2020 from https://support.clarivate.com/ScientificandAcademicResearch/s/article/Web-of-Science-How-ORCID-works-are-matched-to-Web-of-Science-records?language=en_US&r=5&ui-force-components-controllers-recordGlobalValueProvider.RecordGvp.getRecord=1.

  38. Web of Science: Inclusion of ORCID numbers. (2020). Retrieved April 30, 2020 from https://support.clarivate.com/ScientificandAcademicResearch/s/article/Web-of-Science-Inclusion-of-ORCID-numbers?language=en_US.

  39. Youtie, J., Carley, S., Porter, A. L., & Shapira, P. (2017). Tracking researchers and their outputs: New insights from ORCIDs. Scientometrics, 113(1), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2473-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks ORCID’s support and Clarivate’s product support and customer service for their assistance with this study. Thanks to Manuel Durand-Barthez for constructive comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christophe Boudry.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declare that he has no conflict of interest.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 147 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boudry, C. Availability of ORCIDs in publications archived in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science Core Collection. Scientometrics 126, 3355–3371 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03825-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • ORCID
  • Author identifier
  • PubMed
  • Web of Science
  • Country
  • Publisher