Connecting the persistent identifier ecosystem: Building the technical and human infrastructure for open research

Data Science Journal

Volumn 16, Issue , 2017, Pages

  Dappert, Angela ^a   Farquhar, Adam ^a   Kotarski, Rachael ^a   Hewlett, Kirstie ^a  

^a BRITISH LIBRARY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Data citation; Interoperable services; Persistent identifiers; Research infrastructure; Scholarly communication

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEMS;

DATA CITATION; INTEROPERABLE SERVICES; PERSISTENT IDENTIFIERS; RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE; SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION;

INTEROPERABILITY;

EID: 85024388675     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16831470     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2017-028     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Akers, K G, Sarkozy, A, Wu, W and Slyman, A 2016 ORCID Author Identifiers: A Primer for Librarians. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 35(2): 135–144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2016.11 52139
2. Armstrong, D, Haak, L, Meadows, A and Stone, A 2015 ORCID 2015 Survey Report. DOI: https://doi. org/10.6084/m9.figshare.2008206
3. Austin, T 2016 Towards a digital infrastructure for engineering materials data. Materials Discovery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.md.2015.12.003
4. Biden, J 2016 Cancer Moonshot. Report to the President from the Vice President. Washington: The White House. Retrieved from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/finalvp_exec_report_10-17-16final_3.pdf.
5. Bilder, G, Brown, J and Demeranville, T 2016 Organisation identifiers: current provider survey. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5438/4716
6. Cancer Research UK 2016 Why aren’t we sharing? London: Cancer Research UK. Retrieved from: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/funding-for-researchers/research-features/2016-08-10-why-arent-we-sharing.
7. COPDESS 2015 COPDESS Statement of Commitment – COPDESS. Retrieved from: http://www.copdess.org/statement-of-commitment/1 Nov. 2016.
8. CrossRef, DataCite, ORCID and the THOR Project 2016 THOR Project Dashboard Overview. The graph is generated from data retrievable from http://dashboard.project-thor.eu/api/data?type=aggregate. The graph image was accessed from http://dashboard.project-thor.eu/dashboard/December 2016.
9. Cruse, P, Haak, L and Pentz, E 2016 Organization Identifier Project: A Way Forward. DOI: https://doi. org/10.5438/2906
10. DataCite Metadata Working Group 2016 DataCite Metadata Schema Documentation for the Publication and Citation of Research Data. Version 4.0. DataCite e.V. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5438/0012
11. Davidson, J 2006 Persistent Identifiers. DCC Briefing Papers: Introduction to Curation. Edinburgh: Digital Curation Centre. Handle: 1842/3368. http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/briefing-papers/introduction-curation/persistent-identifiers#sthash.jpZBaD5T.dpuf.
12. Edmunds, S 2011 Notes from an E. coli “tweenome” – lessons learned from our first data DOI. Retrieved from: http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/gigablog/2011/08/03/notes-from-an-e-coli-tweenome-lessons-learned-from-our-first-data-doi/4 Dec. 2016.
13. Edmunds, S, Pollard, T, Hole, B and Basford, AT 2012 Adventures in data citation: sorghum genome data exemplifies the new gold standard. BMC Research Notes 2012, 5: 233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-5-223
14. Eklund, A, Nichols, T E and Knutsson, H 2016 Cluster failure: why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, p. 7900. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1602413113
15. Fenner, M, Demeranville, T, Kotarski, R, Dasler, R, McEntyre, J, de Mello, G, Vision, T, Dappert, A and Farquhar, A 2016 THOR: Conceptual Model of Persistent Identifier Linking. DOI: https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.48705
16. Ferguson, N, Moore, R and Schmoller, S 2015 Review of selected organisational IDs and development of use cases for the Jisc CASRAI-UK Organisational Identifiers Working Group. Retrieved from: http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/id/eprint/5853 20 Dec. 2016.
17. Haak, L 2016 Publishers to Start Requiring ORCID iDs [Text]. Retrieved from: https://orcid.org/blog/2016/01/07/publishers-start-requiring-orcid-ids 5 May 2016.
18. Haak, L L, Fenner, M, Paglione, L, Pentz, E and Ratner, H 2012 ORCID: a system to uniquely identify researchers. Learned Publishing, 25(4): pp. 259–264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1087/20120404
19. Huber, R and Klump, J 2016 How dead is dead in the PID Zombie Zoo? Retrieved from: https://www. rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/attachment/20160902-RDA_EU_View_on_PID_Systems_Garching-Robert_Huber-Jens_Klump-How_dead_is_dead_in_the_PID_Zombie_zoo.pdf 23 Dec. 2016.
20. Kerridge, S 2015 The UK Recommends ORCID [Text]. Retrieved from: http://orcid.org/blog/2015/07/16/uk-recommends-orcid 5 May 2016.
21. Kunze, J 2003 Towards electronic persistence using ARK identifiers. In Proceedings of the 3rd ECDL Workshop on Web Archives. Retrieved from: https://wiki.umiacs.umd.edu/adapt/images/0/0a/Arkcdl.pdf 20 Dec. 2016.
22. Lawrence, K F and Bodard, G 2015 June. Prosopography is Greek for Facebook: The SNAP: DRGN Project. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Science Conference, p. 44. ACM. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2786451.2786496
23. MacEwan, A, Angjeli, A and Gatenby, J 2012 The International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI): The evolving future of name authority control. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 51(1–3): pp.55–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2012.730601
24. McNutt, M, Lehnert, K, Hanson, B, Nosek, BA, Ellison, AM and King, JL 2016 Liberating field science samples and data. Science, 351(6277): 1024–1026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad7048
25. ODIN Consortium, Fenner, M, Thorisson, G, Ruiz, S and Brase, J 2013 D4.1 Conceptual model of interoperability. figshare. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.824314.v1
26. Rauber, A, Asmi, A, van Uytvanck, D and Pröll S 2016 Identification of Reproducible Subsets for Data Citation, Sharing and Re-Use. Retrieved form: https://www.rd-alliance.org/system/files/documents/TCDL-RDA-Guidelines_160411.pdf Retreived 01 Dec. 2016.
27. re3data 2016 Re3data API with documentation available from http://www.re3data.org/api/doc. Data extracted 15 November 2016.
28. Rhodes, S 2010 Breaking down link rot: the Chesapeake project legal information archive’s examination of URL stability. Law Libr. J., 102: p. 581.
29. Sheridan, J 2010 Legislation.gov.uk. VOXPOPULII. Retrieved from: https://blog.law.cornell.edu/voxpop/2010/08/15/legislationgovuk/23 Dec. 2016.
30. Shotton, D 2010 CiTO, the Citation Typing Ontology, Journal of Biomedical Semantics. Springer Nature. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-1-s1-s6
31. Sloan, C A, Chan, E T, Davidson, J M, Malladi, V S, Strattan, J S, Hitz, B C, Cherry, J M et al. 2016 ENCODE data at the ENCODE portal. Nucleic Acids Research, 44(D1): D726–D732. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1093/nar/gkv1160
32. Spinosa, P, Francesconi, E and Lupo, C 2010 A uniform resource name (URN) namespace for sources of law (LEX). Retrieved from: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-spinosa-urn-lex-05.txt 23 Dec. 2016.
33. Tyler, D C and McNeil, B 2003 Librarians and link rot: A comparative analysis with some methodological considerations. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(4): pp. 615–632. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2003.0098
34. Walter, P 2016 2 February. I am a number! Retrieved from: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/02/researcher-number-orcid-news-leader-editorial.
35. Wellcome Trust 2015 Who are you? Recognising researchers with ORCID identifiers. Retrieved from: https://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2015/06/30/who-are-you-recognising-researchers-with-orcid-identifiers/.
36. Williams, S C 2016 Practices, Policies, and Persistence: A Study of Supplementary Materials in Crop Science Journals. Journal of Agricultural & Food Information, 17(1): 11–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10496 505.2015.1120213