ORCID growth and field‐wise dynamics of adoption: A case study of the Toulouse scientific area
Open accessAbstract
Research‐focused information systems harvest and promote the scientific output of researchers. Disambiguating author identities is key when disentangling homonyms to avoid merging several persons' records. ORCID offers an identifier to link one's identity, affiliations and bibliography. While funding agencies and scholarly publishers promote ORCID, little is known about its adoption rate. We introduce a method to quantify ORCID adoption according to researchers' discipline and occupation in a higher‐education organization. We semi‐automatically matched the 6,607 staff members affiliated to the 145 labs of the Toulouse scientific area with the 7.3 million profiles at orcid.org. The observed ORCID adoption of 41.8% comes with discipline‐wise disparities. Unexpectedly, only 48.3% of all profiles listed at least one work and profiles with no works might just have been created to get an identifier. Those ‘empty’ profiles are of little interest for the entity disambiguation task. To our knowledge, this is the first study of ORCID adoption at the scale of a multidisciplinary scientific metropole. This method is replicable and future studies can target other cases to contrast the dynamics of ORCID adoption worldwide.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Relatively low ORCiD adoption rates are effectively keeping a low bar for paper-mill activity.
“Relatively low ORCiD adoption rates43,44 are effectively keeping a low bar for paper-mill activity.”
From Identifying fabricated networks within authorship-for-sale enterprises (2024) · cites this paper as [44]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
ORCID: a system to uniquely identify researchers
Laurel, H., Fenner, M. H., Paglione, L., Pentz, E., & Ratner, H. (2012) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1087/20120404 · Cited by 334 · see citing works
Boudry, C., & Durand-Barthez, M. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238583 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Using ORCID, DOI, and Other Open Identifiers in Research Evaluation
Laurel, H., Meadows, A., & Brown, J. (2018) · Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics · doi:10.3389/frma.2018.00028 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Angermüller, J. (2017) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-017-0117-1 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Developing Current Research Information Systems (CRIS) as Data Sources for Studies of Research
Sivertsen, G. (2019) · Springer handbooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_25 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Faculty Use of Author Identifiers and Researcher Networking Tools
Tran, C. Y., & Lyon, J. A. (2017) · College & Research Libraries · doi:10.5860/crl.78.2.171 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Tracking researchers and their outputs: new insights from ORCIDs
Youtie, J., Carley, S. F., Porter, A. L., et al. (2017) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2473-0 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
French academics: Between the professions and the civil service
Chevaillier, T. (2001) · Higher Education · doi:10.1023/a:1026758611096 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Harzing, A.-W. K. (2015) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1699-y · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Fabre, R., Egret, D., Schöpfel, J., et al. (2021) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00111 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Abuse of ORCID’s weaknesses by authors who use paper mills
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2021) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-021-03996-x · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Nicholas, D. M., Watkinson, A., Abrizah, A., et al. (2019) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1002/leap.1284 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
French, R. B., & Fagan, J. C. (2019) · Journal of Web Librarianship · doi:10.1080/19322909.2019.1591324 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Who’s to blame? These three scientists are at the heart of the Surgisphere COVID-19 scandal
Piller, C. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abd2252 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Open Access in Context: Connecting Authors, Publications and Workflows Using ORCID Identifiers
Brown, J., Demeranville, T., & Meadows, A. (2016) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications4040030 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Early adopters of ORCID functionality enabling recognition of peer review: Two brief case studies
Hanson, B., Lawrence, R., Meadows, A., & Paglione, L. (2016) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1002/leap.1004 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
The 2018 OECD International Survey of Scientific Authors
Bello, M., & Galindo‐Rueda, F. (2020) · OECD science, technology and industry working papers · doi:10.1787/18d3bf19-en · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Study Of Orcid Adoption Across Disciplines And Locations
Dasler, R., Deane-Pratt, A., Lavasa, A., et al. (2017) · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.841776 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Grossetti, M., Maisonobe, M., Jégou, L., et al. (2020) · EPJ Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/epjconf/202024401005 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Haak, L. L., Petro, J. A., Simpson, W., Demeranville, T., Wijnbergen, I., Hershberger, S., Wilmers, C., Kiermer, V., Hook, D., & Buster, M. (2019). ORCID 2019 annual report (Tech. Rep.). ORCID. Retrieved from. https://doi.org/10.23640/07243.12009153.v1 · DOI
- Heusse, M.-D. (2016). Faire parler les données sur la recherche grâce au web sémantique: le projet VIVO. In Actes de l'atelier Valorisation et Analyse des Données de la Recherche (VADOR) orga- nisé dans le cadre du congrés (pp. 19-25). INFORSID.
- Heusse, M.-D., & Cabanac, G. (2020). Adoption de l'identifiant chercheur ORCID: le cas des universités toulousaines. In S. Dupuy-Chessa (Ed.), INFORSID'20: 38 e congrés de l'INFormatique des Organisations et Systémes d'Information et de Décision (pp. 19- 34). Editions Inforsid. Retrieved from. http://inforsid.fr/actes/ 2020/INFORSID_2020_p19-34.pdf
- Johnson, R., Watkinson, A., & Mabe, M. (2018). The STM report: An over- view of scientific and scholarly publishing (5th ed.). International Associa- tion of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers. Retrieved from. https://www.stm-assoc.org/2018_10_04_STM_Report_2018.pdf
- Meuric, L. (Ed.). (2020). L'état de l'Emploi scientifique en France. Min- istére de l'enseignement supérieur, de la recherche et de l'innovation. Retrieved from. http://www.enseignementsup- recherche.gouv.fr/pid35205/etat-de-l-emploi-scientifique.html
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Identifying fabricated networks within authorship-for-sale enterprises
Porter, S. J., & McIntosh, L. D. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-71230-8 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- Authors
- Heusse, M., & Cabanac, G.
- Affiliations
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Cabanac, Guillaume
- Venue
- Learned Publishing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-03-09
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 454-466
- ISSN
- 0953-1513 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-4857
- OpenAlex
- W4220747065
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 2.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Learned Publishing (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-11-LABX-0066)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information Systems
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Optics and Image Analysis
- Keywords
- ORCID, researcher identifiers, adoption rates, disciplinary differences, research information systems, entity disambiguation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
