PIDapalooza 2018

Jupyter notebooks are increasingly being used in the computational sciences, for data analysis and storytelling, but they can also be an invaluable tool for working with PIDs in libraries. Interacting with services such as ORCID and Zenodo, Jupyter’s step-by-step process offers an iterative approach to exploring and analyzing these datasets for reporting and curation purposes. In addition, the notebooks can be shared, allowing workflows to be reproduced, analysis remixed and shared again. This talk will demonstrate Jupyter notebok-PID uses in the library context.

With so many to choose from, sometimes deciding on which persistent identifier scheme to use can be difficult. At the Publications Office of the EU we are responsible for identifying content coming out of the EU institutions. We are a registration agency for established international identifiers such as ISBN, ISSN and DOI as well as providing support for our own EU-specific persistent URI scheme. When we received a request from one of our clients for help in identifying the content of a historical archive, we asked ourselves the question: what would be best in this specific case: the doi or our own persistent URI scheme, data.europa.eu? So we have decided to launch a small study to compare the two approaches according to the requirements of this specific case. The results will be known by the end of the year and PIDapalooza would be the ideal forum to share the conclusions.

With Crossref’s late 2017 introduction of support for peer review reports and other review outputs, such as referee reports, decision letters, and author responses, PIDs - for people, places, and things - are now being used throughout the peer review process. This new functionality will is aimed at enabling better citation, recognition, and discoverability of peer reviews, as well as increasing transparency of the peer review process. This session will describe how PIDs have been integrated into the process for journal articles, highlight opportunities and challenges around adoption and use, and raise the question about what is needed for other forms of peer review, such as grant application, conference abstract submission, and annotation. We will present updated statistics on uptake of ORCID and Crossref’s peer review functionality and brainstorm ways to increase future adoption through community engagement and evangelization to researchers and their organizations.

The future of open science lies in a distributed network of resources bolstered by core research infrastructures. Resources are created, housed and preserved at every level in the research ecosystem, but repositories, whether subject or institutional, are a crucial network guaranteeing access to and preservation of precious scholarly resources. Ensuring that these resources are discoverable, reusable and bringing recognition for their creators is at the heart of the repository community's drives to improve their services. Bringing PIDs into the heart of repository workflows and delivering their potential to increase the effectiveness and openness of research communication is essential. By marrying established PIDs, such as ORCID iDs, to popular repository platforms, like DSPace and Fedora, we can leverage the power of both networks, adding new PIDs to repositories and making more of the connections between resources visible. In this session, we will discuss the ways that repository and identifier systems need to evolve to improve discovery and reuse. Representatives from Duraspace and ORCID will debate the ways that their communities are working together to embed PIDs in repository workflows, and present their competing priorities and visions for standards and best practices for identifiers in the repository space.

This conversation will be about how DOIs and ORCID iDs only recently entered BASE, one of the largest academic search engines, which happens to be non-commercial. BASE harvests bibliographic metadata via OAI-PMH from thousands of publication repositories – each of which has its own idea about Dublin Core, the lowest common denominator of metadata formats. So we normalize the data from each repository. Authors have been able to claim their own publications in BASE since mid-2017 by connecting them to their ORCID iD. It is an open research question how this linkage information could percolate back to the source repositories. Suggestions welcome!

This presentation aims to describe the Portuguese approach to manage organizational identifiers within the national/international ecosystem of research information system. It describes the goals, methodology , architecture and use cases of how bridge identifiers, in the case ISNI and Ringgold, have helped to break information systems silos providing added value to the stakeholders. The Org Ids project is part of PTCRIS (www.ptcris.pt) program which aims to define standards and build infrastructures that ensure the integration of information systems supporting scientific activity into a single, coherent and integrated ecosystem.

Research is supported in a variety of ways- through grants, endowments, secondments, loans use of premises/equipment and even crowd-funding. In any of these cases, it is important to be able to link researchers and research outputs to details about the sources of support. This is true for prosaic reasons- to understand ROI, to map the competitive landscape, to ensure that mandates are fulfilled, to avoid double payment. But it is also true for epistemic reasons- understanding how research was funded can help contextualise that research, and help expose potential conflicts of interest or specific agendas.

We already have the Open Funder Registry which at least provides a coarse mapping between research and funders, but it is becoming clear that we need more fine-grained mapping directly to information about the kind of support that was provided. Crossref is working with DataCite and ORCID to build off the work we did on the Open Funder Registry and create an interoperable PID that will map to information about how funders support specific research. This talk will describe what we’ve learned so-far and how we plan to proceed. Hint- don’t call them “grant IDs.”

Content-addressable identification of scholarly resources enables new, post-custodial methods for achieving sustainable persistence of the scholarly record. Instead of continued reliance on traditional notions of centralized custodial management, post-custodial stewardship focuses on applying meaningful curatorial services to resources wherever they most naturally reside. In essence, it replaces the constraining necessity to *hold* content locally with an open-ended ability to *reference* it freely and actionably. This requires a robust infrastructure for global identification of scholarly assets through massively-distributed content-addressable solutions like IPFS or Dat.

In this session, I will propose a new workflow for PID registration that does not involve any API calls or web form submissions by the registering party. DOIs for science blogs are used as an example and good fit for this new workflow. We will have a working prototype by February and invite interested parties to bring their science blog for DOI-fication to the beta test we will then start.

Citations as First Class Data Entities, and Open CItation Identifiers

Citations, the conceptual directional links between citing and cited papers created by the inclusion of a reference in the reference list of the citing paper, are key elements in the scholarly landscape.  It is important to discuss citations now, because the Initiative for Open has persuaded almost all the major scholarly publishers to open the reference lists they submit to Crossref, so that Crossref now has about half a billion open references.

Citations need to be treated as first class data entities, so that they can be more readily described, distinguished, counted, processed and analysed.  I will present methods of permitting citations to be treated as first class data objects, that include:

     being definable in a machine-readable manner – requiring ontology modifications;

     being storable, searchable and retrievable – requiring a well-structured open database;

     being identifiable – requiring a new a global Persistent Identifier; and

    having a Web-based resolution service that takes the identifier as input and returns a description of the citation.

Faced with well-known issues in the reporting of empirical studies such as “p-hacking” and the file-drawer problem, authors increasingly bolster the credibility of their finding by preregistering their studies and or providing pre-analysis plans (PAP). Several venues for pre-registration already exists (clinicaltrials.gov for medical studies, EGAP for political science, the AEA RCT registry for economics, and OSF across disciplines). Metadata standards for preregistration are barely existing. There is no way to systematically associate a preregistration with a published article or to easily query existing preregistrations for a given author. We develop a blueprint for a PID-based system that allows for the systematic citation of study preregistrations, as well as the linkage of preregistration to other digital objects (data, article) as well as researchers. We explore to what extent the existing DOI infrastructure can already accomplish this and where changes are needed.

Dreams and realities of PID adoption in European research information management. A story of PID tactics.

Team members from OCLC Research, in conjunction with LIBER, have been examining the adoption and integration of PIDs in the evolving ecosystem of research information management in Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands.

In this presentation, I will share our findings regarding the dynamics around PID adoption, in particular incentives and barriers to adoption.
Are some tactics more successful than others? Come and find out.

Full report: https://doi.org/10.25333/C32K7M 

Presentation: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5727011.v1

Event Data is a new service from Crossref. It collects links from the web to items of Crossref and DataCite Registered Content. It describes new forms of scholarship beyond traditional publishing, and forms an underlying data-set that can be used for altmetrics, amongst other things. It records this data as a stream of links between pairs of URLs (e.g. Tweets, blog posts, Wikipedia pages linking to scholarly articles). Sometimes those URLs are DOIs, sometimes they are publishers' article landing pages. In doing this, it bridges the world of persistent identifiers and plain old URLs. I'll describe the service, pitfalls, the trends we tend to see, and why you'd want to use it.

https://www.crossref.org/blog/bridging-identifiers-at-pidapalooza/ 

The use of PIDs for journal articles, books, datasets, people and funders is now commonplace within publishing workflows and there are other initiatives underway such as grants, software and organizations. However, there are many entities that could be usefully associated with a PID and machine actionable metadata outside of these categorisations. Examples include a PID for work performed by someone at an institution (i.e. an employment record or study credit), a PID for a qualification gained at an institution (i.e. a degree or professional qualification record), or a PID for a research infrastructure facility, such as a high powered laser or research vessel. The potential use cases for PIDs are almost endless. We propose an on-demand service that enables PIDs to be created on demand, associated with domain appropriate metadata and persisted. This presentation will cover the issue, describe a flexible and metadata agnostic solution, demo a working prototype, and discuss how the community can make a Persisted and Identified Metadata as a Service (PIMaaS) service a reality.

Scholix is not one of the PID Rock Stars. We are just a bunch of people trying to do stuff with PIDS; specifically link the PID of a dataset with the PID of piece of literature and say what the relationship is. How hard can that be? Bl**dy hard. This is the backstage view of PIDs from the Blood Sweat and Tears of roadies. And we have learnt a lot about persistent identifier types; resolving identifiers, URI vs non URI forms, what metadata is useful with a PID for our purposes, multiple identifiers for the same thing, de-referencing or not de-referencing PIDS and lots more.

PIDs are increasingly being used to identify research resources - things that are used to perform a research study. There are as many types of research resources - rocks, antibodies, protein structures, natural history collections, databases, software applications… - as there are identifier types applied to them - DOIs, RRIDs, IGSNs, Accession Numbers… What is the purpose of a research resource ID? Is there enough similarity between the resource types to justify a common approach? Do collisions between identifier types affect adoption - such as PDB IDs and DOIs for protein structures? Or organization IDs and RRIDs for user facilities? To manage collisions, are additional infrastructural elements required? What principles or policies could be helpful in enabling different ID systems to co-exist?