Is Mandatory ORCID a Violation of an Author’s Freedoms and Rights?

IF 0.6 4区 管理学 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Serials Review Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI:10.1080/00987913.2021.2022395
J. A. Teixeira da Silva
{"title":"Is Mandatory ORCID a Violation of an Author’s Freedoms and Rights?","authors":"J. A. Teixeira da Silva","doi":"10.1080/00987913.2021.2022395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) is supposed to exclusively be an author identification tool. In this letter, I argue that the mandatory requirement to have an ORCID for the submission of an academic paper may constitute a violation of an author’s rights if it prevents them from the free and unhindered submission of a paper to a journal, especially if their identity is sufficiently unique to distinguish them from other academics with similar names, or if other websites would be able to confirm their identity. ORCID is a valuable tool to fortify one aspect of publishing’s integrity. However, by barring entry of an author during the submission process, it would be essentially functioning against open science principles.","PeriodicalId":54165,"journal":{"name":"Serials Review","volume":"47 1","pages":"243 - 244"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Serials Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2021.2022395","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Abstract ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) is supposed to exclusively be an author identification tool. In this letter, I argue that the mandatory requirement to have an ORCID for the submission of an academic paper may constitute a violation of an author’s rights if it prevents them from the free and unhindered submission of a paper to a journal, especially if their identity is sufficiently unique to distinguish them from other academics with similar names, or if other websites would be able to confirm their identity. ORCID is a valuable tool to fortify one aspect of publishing’s integrity. However, by barring entry of an author during the submission process, it would be essentially functioning against open science principles.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
强制ORCID是否侵犯了作者的自由和权利?
摘要ORCID(开放研究者和贡献者ID)被认为是一个专门的作者识别工具。在这封信中,我认为,如果强制要求提交学术论文时必须有ORCID,这可能会侵犯作者的权利,如果这阻止了他们自由、不受阻碍地向期刊提交论文,特别是如果他们的身份足够独特,可以将他们与其他同名学者区分开来,或者其他网站是否能够确认他们的身份。ORCID是一个有价值的工具,可以加强出版业的诚信。然而,在提交过程中禁止作者进入,这基本上违背了开放科学原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Serials Review
Serials Review INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Serials Review, issued quarterly, is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal for the international serials community. Articles focus on serials in the broadest sense of the term and cover all aspects of serials information; regular columns feature interviews, exchanges on controversial topics, book reviews, and conference reports. The journal encompasses practical, theoretical, and visionary ideas for librarians, publishers, vendors, and anyone interested in the changing nature of serials. Serials Review covers all aspects of serials management: format considerations, publishing models, statistical studies, collection analysis, collaborative efforts, reference and access issues, cataloging and acquisitions, people who have shaped the serials community, and topical bibliographic studies.
期刊最新文献
An Attitude toward the Collaborative Information Behavior: A Systematic Review The Read Feed: Reviews Overlap Analysis: A Case Study Current and Historical Publication Trends of State Library Association Journals and Newsletters Identifying Combinations of Altmetrics and Web of Science Usage That Linked to Early Citations of an Article Received: A Crisp-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (csQCA)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1