Around the world over 1.8 million researchers have registered for an iD, many in the hope that it will enhance their digital discoverability and reduce their reporting paperwork. Several funders have started to require ORCID iDs as part of the grant proposal process. In the UK, the Wellcome Trust<\/a>\u00a0and the NIHR<\/a> both do, and ORCID IDs are being integrated with Researchfish<\/a>, the system used by the Research Councils to track grant outputs.<\/p>\n Universities are getting in on the act too. In 2014 my own institution, Imperial College, a created ORCID iDs for \u00a0every member of staff<\/a> who didn\u2019t already have one, unless they opted out. Very few did so.<\/p>\n The number of publishers using ORCIDs is also on the rise. Today a group of eight publishers have announced<\/a> that, beginning in 2016, they will require authors to use an ORCID identifier (iD) during the publication process. These are AAAS (publishers of the Science<\/a> stable of journals), American Geophysical Union (AGU), eLife, EMBO, Hindawi, the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the Public Library of Science (PLOS) and the Royal Society. The Royal Society has been quickest off the mark,\u00a0making ORCID iDs a requirement for authors as of new year\u2019s day<\/a>. The rest\u00a0will follow suit at various dates throughout 2016.<\/p>\n With luck, this move with spur other publishers soon to join in.<\/p>\n In a digital world ORCID iDs make a great deal of sense. Their adoption by institutions and publishers fulfils two of the recommendations made in The Metric Tide<\/em><\/a>, last year\u2019s report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics Research Assessment and Management (of which I was a co-author). If we are going to track outputs, we might as well do it systematically and efficiently.\u00a0I look forward to the day when interacting with Researchfish will be trivial rather than tedious, as at present. In theory, ORCID IDs\u00a0might even reduce away some of the burden of the ever-unpopular\u00a0Research Excellence Framework (REF)<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 though of course we shall have to await the outcome of the government\u2019s re-jigging of HEFCE and the Research Councils<\/a> before the contours of the next REF become clear. I wouldn\u2019t hold my breath.<\/p>\n Of course by automating the digital tracking of inputs and outputs of ORCID iDs raises the risks associated with \u00a0 unthinking uses of metrics \u2013 something that The Metric Tide<\/em> was keen to warn against. On that front we need to remain vigilant. But on a personal level, most of us want to be recognised for our work and have an interest in making sure that our published outputs are recorded accurately. The ORCID system also provides handy way of keeping track of your published work. Thanks to the good offices of Europe Pubmed Central<\/a>, you can use your ORCID iD to follow the open citations<\/a> to your work. Here, in the interests of transparency, are mine: https:\/\/europepmc.org\/authors\/0000-0002-0552-8870<\/a>. The profile is perhaps not as complete as that provided through Google Scholar<\/a> but it is at least open.<\/p>\n If you want an ORCID iD of your own, simply sign up<\/a> and use the tools to identify yourself and your work (papers, conference proceedings, patents \u2013 anything). You can also add your grants, and your education & employment history. For all of the information entered, it\u2019s up to you how much to make publicly visible.<\/p>\n Update (2015-01-07, 14:02):\u00a0<\/strong>This post was modified to mention the fact that the AAAS<\/a>\u00a0will also be requiring ODID iDs in 2016.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Have you got an\u00a0ORCID identifier yet? You should. They\u2019re on the rise \u2013 and for good reason. An ORCID iD is a number (mine is 0000-0002-0552-8870) that unambiguously and persistently identifies you in the digital world of academia. It ensures … Continue reading ![\"ORCID](\"https:\/\/farm2.staticflickr.com\/1664\/23860348449_ff31c39769_z.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n