12 thoughts on “Uptake of Google Scholar profiles at Dutch Universities and consequences for ORCiD implementation”

  1. As far as I know Maastricht University did not promote Google Scholar profiles. Which might be in indication that these promotions help. Starting with promoting a voluntary registration has the benefit that researchers also get to know the benefits of the related tools. So even if you would want to register everyone automatically in the end I would start with that.
    ORCiD indeed aims at both providing unique identifier to disambiguate names, as well as a tool to publish and maintain your comprehensive publication list. So far ORCiD however seems to be most promising for providing unique identifiers. Google succeeds better in providing a useful and complete list even without involvement of the researcher that can also be easily found (you can Google it) and it can optionally be used to connect to other interesting publications and researchers. If the world wants to go with a general unique identifier it might be good to decouple that from automatic provision of tools and lists and make these optional. After all one of the reasons I see for people not registering for profiles is that they are not always really proud of what shows up if they do.

  2. As far as I know Maastricht University did not promote Google Scholar profiles. Which might be in indication that these promotions help. Starting with promoting a voluntary registration has the benefit that researchers also get to know the benefits of the related tools. So even if you would want to register everyone automatically in the end I would start with that.
    ORCiD indeed aims at both providing unique identifier to disambiguate names, as well as a tool to publish and maintain your comprehensive publication list. So far ORCiD however seems to be most promising for providing unique identifiers. Google succeeds better in providing a useful and complete list even without involvement of the researcher that can also be easily found (you can Google it) and it can optionally be used to connect to other interesting publications and researchers. If the world wants to go with a general unique identifier it might be good to decouple that from automatic provision of tools and lists and make these optional. After all one of the reasons I see for people not registering for profiles is that they are not always really proud of what shows up if they do.

  3. Nice overview. Two small comments:

    1. historically, UM email addresses can also have unimaas.nl, but this adds only two further GS profiles.

    2. About ORCID you write: “that after 4 years you have success rates around 60 to 70% at the max”… I very much doubt that. ORCID is being adopted and increasingly required by publishers, causing an incentive to get a profile, something that the GS profile does not have.

  4. It’s understandable that libraries prefer ISNI as primary identifier to ORCID, because ORCIDs are focused on researchers (although anybody can get one), can’t be assigned to dead people, and are dependent on self registration. Whereas ISNIs can identify anybody, dead or alive, and are assigned by trusted authorities. But I agree that there should be some kind of central or distributed linking of all types of person identifiers.
    About ISNI-ORCID: as you mention ORCID is supposed to be a sub range of ISNI. Unfortunately this does not mean that an ORCID is automatically also an ISNI. Because of the trusted authority issue, I guess.

    1. Like for anything else identified with identifier systems on the web there will likely always be competing identifier systems or systems used for slightly different purposes. That is not necessarily a bad thing even, but certainly not something worth fighting against. What we do need is mapping tables and tools like or BridgeDb that allow you to use these mappings in software. If anyone is aware of mappings between the different ID types mentioned here it might be good to create such mapping tables and make them available.

  5. Dear Chris, Egon and Lukas,

    Thanks for your positive comments in the first place. As Egon can see, I acted already on his suggestion that there is also an obsolete @unimaas.nl email affiliation. (Something communications experts should really pay more attention to).
    Good to have confirmed that there have been no efforts at Maastricht University to promote Google Scholar profiles. I noted the lowest uptake for your uni. A bit odd, to me. Looks like an excellent library activity and to promote outreach for the university and be active in some real research support activity. Of course Chris, voluntary registration with ORCiD of researchers is important, but we have a unique set of disambiguated author names with DAI, and affiliation information, in collaboration with ORCiD we can use that to pre-register probably 95% of currently active researchers at universities and link this with their ISNI as well. ISNI is a save route for libraries to take, but not interacting with the current researcher demands. Have a look at Egon his registration in Narcis he got there his Narcis already, but his ORCiD would have been more useful, and vice versa linking van ORCiD back into the CRIS and Narcis as far as I am concerned. But Chris, unfortunately you Narcis registration is a bit of a mess, please resolve that with your library.
    As far as I can see are the tools in ORCiD optional, I have seen many ORCiD registration without any additional information, but I do believe most researchers want to at least showcase here some of their best publications.
    The other nice thing about ORCiD, is that researchers are actively requested by publishers to provide their ORCiD. However I wonder if this already requested by all 5000+ publishers we know off. Secondly, in the STEM world yes, but humanities probably not so much. So I do hope ORCiD uptake will be quicker than Google Scholar profiles, but not going to more than 90% quite easily. That is why I see sufficient scope for library involvement.

    Libraries prefer ISNI, yes, and they need it as well. Certainly in the catalogues etc. However in a Current RIS, ORCiD are preferred, simply because it is closer to the researcher world, and more services are being developed on the basis of ORCiD. Reseachers actually need them. So we should -as a library- support it as good as we can. And if we want to maintain a switchboard of identifiers, have the required bridge tables, it should be at the library for our own users. I guess it will take some time before ORCiD and ISNI arrange crosswalks between the systems, albeit we can go from ISNI to ORCiD, but not yet vice versa. We are in the Netherlands in a position to do that already for the large majority of our researchers. An opportunity we shouldn’t waste.

  6. To me the question seems to be: how do we give researchers control over OrCIDS if we create and populate them from thye information held in NTA and repositories?

    1. In a sense Yes. But we can let them know they have been created, and it is up to them to claim these on their own behalve. Fruthermore we can popupulate them with publications, work history at the university and couple them with their ISNI.

  7. What a coincidence: The Research Support team from the University Library of Maastricht University is planning some nice activities to promote especially ORCiD and it’s adventages as well. This is planned for the next few months. In addition bibliometrics and altmetrics will be explicitely on our services agenda for 2016.

Comments are closed.