Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Tracking researchers and their outputs: new insights from ORCIDs

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source: Web of Science, January 31, 2017 based on 5,129,893 articles, 802,632 proceedings, and 19,913,828 total document record counts in the Web of Science based on searches of the publication year, article and proceedings paper document types, using “0000*” to represent the ORCID iD

Fig. 2

Source ResearcherID & ORCID Integration, http://wokinfo.com/researcherid/integration/

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altman, M., Conlon, M., Cristan, A. L., Dawson, L., Dunham, J., Hickey, T., & Smart, L. (2014). Registering researchers in authority files. OCLC Research.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohannon, J. (2017). Vast set of public CVs reveals the world’s most migratory scientists. Science. doi:10.1126/science.aal1189.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Fenner, M. (2011). ORCID: unique identifiers for authors and contributors. Information Standards Quarterly, 23(3), 10–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenner, M., Gómez, C. G., & Thorisson, G. (2011). Collective action for the open researcher & contributor ID (Orcid). Serials, 24(3).

  • Garfield, E. (1969). British quest for uniqueness versus American egocentrism. Nature, 223, 763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Haak, L (2016, January). Publishers start requiring ORCID IDs. Retrieved from https://orcid.org/blog/2016/01/07/publishers-start-requiring-orcid-ids.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, R. P. (1984). Blocking Considerations for Record Linkage Under Conditions of Uncertainty. In Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, 602–605.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, A. (2016). Everything you ever wanted know about ORCID… but were afraid to ask. College & Research Libraries News, 77(1), 23-30.

  • 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.

  • Number of ORCID IDs (2017, February 17). Retrieved from http://support.orcid.org/knowledgebase/articles/150557-number-of-orcid-ids.

  • ResearcherID & ORCID Integration (2017, January). Retrieved from http://wokinfo.com/researcherid/integration/.

  • 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.

  • Smalheiser, N. R., & Torvik, V. I. (2009). Author name disambiguation. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • What is Orcid? (2016, March). Retrieved from http://orcid.org/content/about-orcid.

  • Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1), 83–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Laurel Haak and ZL Wang for their assistance with this study. We also thank Joshua Brown and Adèniké Deane-Pratt from ORCID, and Patricia Brennan, Helen Muth, and Joe Barton from Clarivate Analytics for their help with interpreting the findings. This study was undertaken with support from the US National Science Foundation under Award 1645237 (EAGER: Using the ORCID and Emergence Scoring to Study Frontier Researchers). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors or individuals who provided assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Enterprise Innovation Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30308, USA

    Jan Youtie

  2. Search Technology, 6025 The Corners Pkwy Suite 202, Norcross, GA, 30092, USA

    Stephen Carley & Alan L. Porter

  3. School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, 685 Cherry Street, Atlanta, GA, 30332 – 0345, USA

    Stephen Carley, Alan L. Porter & Philip Shapira

  4. Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

    Philip Shapira

Authors
  1. Jan Youtie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen Carley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alan L. Porter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Philip Shapira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Youtie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2473-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation