*Apologies for cross-posting -*
I'm working with ORCID on a study to get a better understanding of the role
of things like bios, profiles, CVs, personal websites, etc as a mechanism
for digital introduction for any purpose. We're also looking for insights
about how researchers regard the use of this type of artifact for
consequential interactions, for example, decisions about promotion, tenure,
funding, data access, project involvement, etc.
Would you be able to help to get the word out to any researcher communities
that you are a part of? Researchers/ scholars do not need to have any
knowledge or experience with ORCID. A short blurb is below along with a
link to ORCID's blog post about it.
---
ORCID (orcid.org) provides a persistent digital identifier that
distinguishes you from every other researcher and, through integration in
key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports
automated linkages between you and your professional activities ensuring
that your work is recognized.
Between now and May 1, ORCID is looking for researchers and scholars from
all countries, career stages, and disciplines to tell us what they think
about how they are connected to their work so we can ultimately improve and
enrich the environments, workflows, and interactions that are a part of
research and scholarly work. There are two ways to participate - find out
more:
https://orcid.org/blog/2020/03/25/two-ways-you-can-help-orcid-learn-about-w…
---
Thanks!
Best, L
--
<https://about.me/lpaglione?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=em…>
Be different.
Laura Paglione
LauraPaglione.com <https://laurapaglione.com/>
lpaglione(a)SphericalCowGroup.com <lpaglione(a)sphericalcowgroup.com>
Hi all,
First of all, I hope that you’re all doing well! I think many of you, like librarians of digital resources, have quite some work these days;) I hope you can manage it, as most of you are working from home in a locked down country.
As you all understand, the LIBER 2020 conference in Belgrade in June is canceled. We were scheduled to have a presentation there.
Anyway, work goes on. We have published our Guidelines and Recommendations document for public comments.
@all: please share the message<https://libereurope.eu/blog/2020/03/02/fim4l-recommendations/>
Two weeks ago I gave a presentation<https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0AGLhezd40hjwUk9PVA> for librarians of the United Nations.
Last week I got an interesting remark from Ralph Youngen (ACS, SeamlessAccess) on a question from Jiri. He said: “... The Pseudonymous entity category will be essential to avoid suspending access to an entire institution in the case of compromised credentials.”
Basically, we have two recommendations for libraries to choose from: Principle 4.A (transient identifier) and 4.B (persistent/pseudonymous identifier).
If publishers block an entire institution in case of misconduct when a library has chosen for 4.A, how should libraries respond? Should we recommend a pseudonymous identifier? Or is there a way to urge publishers not to block an institution? What are your thoughts on that?
(You may put your comments here: https://www.discuto.io/en/consultation/33970 )
Take care and all the best,
Jos
