Author identifier analysis: Name authority control in two institutional repositories

Abstract

The aim of this poster is to analyze name authority control in two institutional repositories to determine the extent to which faculty researchers are represented in researcher identifier databases. A purposive sample of 50 faculty authors from Florida Southern College (FSC) and Ryerson University (RU) were compared against five different authority databases: Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF), Scopus, Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID), Virtual International Authority File (VIAF), and International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI). We first analyzed the results locally, then compared them between the two institutions. The findings show that while LCNAF and Scopus results are comparable between the two institutions, the difference in the ORCID, VIAF, and ISNI are considerable. Additionally, the results show that the majority of authors at each institution are represented in two or three external databases. This has implications for enhancing local authority data by linking to external identifier authority data to augment institutional repository metadata.

Researcher Profile System Adoption and Use Across Discipline and Rank: A Case Study at the University of Manitoba

“…Our institutional adoption rates for Google Scholar (56.9%) and ResearchGate (63.9%) align with Zhang and Li's, with 48.1% and 62.8% respectively. In Morgan and Eichenlaub's (2018) study of Ryerson University faculty, ORCID (62%) and Scopus (96%) adoption is substantially higher than at the University of Manitoba, with 45.5% and 85.4% respectively.…”

“…It can be revealing to know who is using researcher profile systems to tailor academic library services, instruction, and promotion. Previous studies have documented populations using researcher profiles (Mikki et al, 2015;Sandberg & Jin, 2016;Aman, 2018;Morgan & Eichenlaub, 2018;Boudry & Durand-Barthez, 2020;Zhang & Li, 2020;Heusse & Cabanac, 2022).…”

Is ORCID your ID? A case study at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of the University of Porto

“…A literature review shows few studies on the adoption of ORCID. Some focus on the compared adoption rate of several identifiers for specific universities (Boudry & Durand‐Barthez, 2020; Fernández‐Marcial & González‐Solar, 2015; Mikki et al, 2015; Morgan & Eichenlaub, 2018). Heusse and Cabanac's (2022) research observe, for the Toulouse area, a gradual growth in ORCID adoption since 2016, reaching an average of 39.2%, with higher implementation in Health, Biology and Agronomy (41.8%) compared to Law, Economics and Management (21.7%).…”

Utilisation et usages des identifiants numériques chercheurs en France. Synthèse de l’enquête nationale 2023

“…De nombreux articles ont été publiés pour expliquer le problème de l'identification des auteurs et l'utilité des identifiants numériques chercheurs dont ORCID (Bohannon & Doran, 2017;Haak et al, 2012;Youtie et al, 2017). Plusieurs études ont également été menées pour évaluer spécifiquement dans quelle mesure les identifiants numériques chercheurs sont utilisés par les chercheurs (Mikki et al, 2015;Tran & Lyon, 2017;Morgan & Eichenlaub, 2018;Boudry & Durand-Barthez, 2020;Heusse & Cabanac, 2022;Schnieders et al, 2022;Porter, 2022;Fernandez-Marcial et al, 2023). Au niveau national, l'identifiant numérique chercheur ORCID est mis en avant dans la Politique des données, des algorithmes et des codes sources (Ministère de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, 2021c) et le deuxième Plan national pour la science ouverte (Ministère de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, 2021a), tant sous l'angle individuel du chercheur (identité numérique, visibilité des travaux, promotion des CV narratifs) que sous l'angle technique (information pivot sur laquelle s'appuyer afin d'éviter des ressaisies d'information dans le cadre notamment de la soumission de candidature à des appels à projet) et stratégique (gouvernance des identifiants uniques).…”