In Beyond Publication – Increasing Opportunities for Recognizing All Research Contributions, Alice Meadows writes about CRediT, the Contributor Roles Taxonomy, and ORCiD , the Open Researcher and Contributor ID, as tools to expand recognition for a broader range of contributions. Besides financial and market factors, institutional reward systems that elevate prestige and limited types of labor also reinforce a closed knowledge production system. In fact, producing works of scholarship and creativity is often a collaborative effort involving multiple roles. Accurate attribution for the different forms of labor that produce scholarly outputs is one step towards recognizing the range of those outputs. CRediT standardizes 14 contributor roles, including conceptualization, data curation, funding acquisition and software, among others. ORCiD has a profile section for multiple types of affiliations through Memberships and Service, and it supports profile population connections for different work types, such as manual, online resource, research tool, test, etc.. In addition to CRediT, ORCiD is integrated with Publons to include peer review work in a scholar’s profile.
Category: Tools
Directory of publishers’ research data policies from CHORUS
CHORUS is the publisher-built platform for tagging and delivering access to publicly funded research. The CHORUS organization has created a centralized index of member publishers’ policies on author/researcher data availability with links to the policies on the publisher’s site. When and how research data becomes available determines when a study can be verified or replicated.
CSU Academic Senate resolves to adopt ORCID
UMass Amherst Libraries has been an institutional supporter of ORCID for nearly two years, and its systems of interoperable data continue to grow (now including biographical information, education & qualifications, employment, memberships & service, invited positions & distinctions, funding, works, peer review activity and research resources.) Campus partners in Information Technology and Research and Engagement are showing increasing interest in integrating ORCID into our campus systems and workflows. Therefore, the announcement last week that the Academic Senate of California State University passed a resolution was notable. It:
“strongly encourage[s] CSU faculty, students, and administrators—whether past, present, or future—to sign up for an ORCID iD and maintain a well-curated and well-integrated ORCID record” and which “strongly encourage[s] the Office of the Chancellor and campus Presidents to provide financial support for a CSU-wide and campus ORCID institutional memberships, make robust ORCID integration a procurement standard for software service providers whenever reasonable, commission a system-wide ORCID implementation task force, and commit significant staff development time to build customized ORCID integrations within and across the CSU system”.
The rationale in the resolution is worth reading because it provides a thorough account of the benefits of institutional adoption of the ORCID. Again, other institutions’ actions provide us with models for next steps to take here at UMass Amherst.
Use Think.Check.Submit to evaluate a publisher
For those who are in the process of selecting a publisher, or want to review the publisher of other research, Think.Check.Submit for books and journals offer process guides for evaluation to determine whether or not a publisher is engaging in predatory practices. They provide a more nuanced and transparent approach than relying on a “whitelist” or “blacklist” by guiding you through a checklist of various factors which may take on different importance, depending on individual circumstances.
The SPARC Big Deal cancellation tracker
We’ve all heard of academic libraries cancelling subscriptions to “big deal” journal packages, and in the face of tightening acquisitions budgets, these cancellations are likely to accelerate. You can monitor which institutions have taken action with the SPARC Big Deal Cancellation Tracker. It provides institution/consortia, date, region, publisher, strategic considerations, outcomes and estimated cost savings. Strategic considerations generally include advancing open access and financial sustainability/flexibility. Other institutions’ actions provide useful guideposts to us as we develop our Framework for Publisher Agreements and renegotiate our big deal agreements.