Ser editor

Science in the Open » Adopting ORCIDs

A adoção de ORCIDs pelas revistas científicas se transforma também em uma tendência, que rapidamente se disseminará. O que ainda estava travando o crescimento do número de ID’s ORCID era o fato de que nenhum publisher relevante tinha tornado a sua adoção obrigatória, como aconteceu há poucas semanas atrás. Oito dos maiores e mais influentes publishers decidiram tornar as ID’s ORCID mandatórias, pelo menos para os corresponding authors.

No Brasil a existência do CV Lattes talvez tenha retardado bastante o crescimento do ORCID. Afinal, porque um pesquisador manteria dois registros da sua produção científica, se o CV Lattes dá tudo o que é necessário para as relações com os Programas de Pós-Graduação, para as agências de fomento brasileiras e para as dinâmicas de avaliação no Brasil? O CV Lattes tem realmente penetração geral na academia brasileira, mas é desconhecido internacionalmente – mesmo a sua interface em língua inglesa é pobre e tem níveis precários de certificação. Uma ID ORCID, por seu turno, está focada apenas na produção científica certificada do autor, e há pouco ou nenhum espaço para que venha a se constituir em uma espécie de CV on line, como o Lattes. Mas esse é o padrão que promete se tornar dominante internacionalmente. No Brasil, eu desconfio que o passo decisivo para a adoção da ID ORCID como padrão de identificação será torná-la obrigatória nas submissões de todas as contribuições feitas às revistas da Coleção Scielo Brasil.

Desde o inicio de 2015 as normas de colaboração da Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional e de Meridiano 47 valorizam a informação da ORCID ID, que será incluída nos metadados dos artigos publicados nos dois periódicos. Ela não é obrigatória, portanto, mas muito bem-vinda!

Cameron Neylon faz um comentário bem completo sobre essa tendência. Logo abaixo:

Eight publishers will move to require ORCIDs for corresponding authors as part of the submission requirements for submitting articles.

It seems like a very long time ago that I got involved in the efforts to develop an ID system for contributors to research outputs. A post from 2009 seems to be the earliest I wrote about it alongside a summary from a few weeks later (ironically, given the discussion a summary for which most of the links are broken). I’ve been doing a lot of looking at old posts recently and those two illustrate an interesting turning point. In the first of the two there’s a somewhat idealised and naive technical proposal, and an evident distrust of the idea that publishers (or a publisher organisation like Crossref) should take the lead. In the second there is a rather more pragmatic perspective and (discounting the…ah…lets just say somewhat superseded technical ideas) a summary that ends with two sharp points.

Publishers and funders will have to lead. The end view of what is being discussed here is very like a personal home page for researchers. But instead of being a home page on a server it is a dynamic document pulled together from stuff all over the web. But researchers are not going to be interested for the most part in having another home page that they have to look after. Publishers in particular understand the value (and will get most value out of in the short term) unique identifiers so with the most to gain and the most direct interest they are best placed to lead, probably through organisations like CrossRef that aggregate things of interest across the industry. Funders will come along as they see the benefits of monitoring research outputs, and forward looking ones will probably come along straight away, others will lag behind. The main point is that pre-populating and then letting researchers come along and prune and correct is going to be more productive than waiting for ten millions researchers to sign up to a new service.

The really big question is whether there is value in doing this specially for researchers. This is not a problem unique to research and one in which a variety of messy and disparate solutions are starting to arise. Maybe the best option is to sit back and wait to see what happens. I often say that in most cases generic services are a better bet than specially built ones for researchers because the community size isn’t there and there simply isn’t a sufficient need for added functionality. My feeling is that for identity that there is a special need, and that if we capture the whole research community that it will be big enough to support a viable service. There is a specific need for following and aggregating the work of people that I don’t think is general, and is different to the authentication issues involved in finance. So I think in this case it is worth building specialist services.


Continue lendo aqui: Science in the Open » Blog Archive » Adopting ORCIDs.

Source: Science in the Open » Adopting ORCIDs


Deixe uma resposta