create a function to remove duplicates in "works"
also update spelling of infromation to information !
please enable a function to remove duplicates in "works"
incorporating data from an other source creates doubloons impossible to remove....
Records imported from different sources need to be merged into a single record.
When ORCiD was just launched, some publishing corporations or manuscript systems automatically produce IDs for the authors/reviewers who have submitted/reviewed papers on their websites. That may lead to duplicate IDs of the same author.
Take me for instance, I met difficulties (strange website crash) in fulfilling my information during the early registration, so I had to give up at that time. Later, I registered a new ID as my formal ORCiD, and linked it to my Scopus information. However, I found that I also have a duplicate ID of mine on another manuscript system....
Could you please consider to find some solutions to such problem? If possible, please put a solution on the "FAQs" of ORCiD website.
It is really irritating that a double import does not identify duplicated elements. Tidying up is also tedious.
please sort out repeated publications and mark them for deletion or remove them and ask for confirmation after we review the list
Updating the database leads regularly to duplicates. They are best weeded out by comparing DOIN identifiers and the like
There should be a way to collapse duplicate works. E.g.: I have the same article twice since DOI is spelled a little differently in scopus and as a direct search result.
Something like in android/google when you want to lilnk duplicate contacts
Occasionally, I've trwice imported my publications from Scopus.
I can't delete duplicates using web interface. There is no way to delete/edit biblio records at all.
Having imported works from Scopus and the suggested CrossRef pubs, it seems that duplicate records are too easy to include in an ORCID publication list. This should be prevented by using smart matching - doi, or IVP + title, etc
Remove duplicates, the find publications has lots of duplicates in it
We’ve just released a new interface that addresses the issue with duplicate works added from different sources. The new interface groups works together by the work’s identifiers so that duplicates are shown as multiple versions of a single work.
The full announcement for about the new interface is at http://orcid.org/blog/2014/12/11/new-feature-friday-new-orcid-record-interface
The lack of this capability in ORCID has so far prevented me from taking ORCID seriously, or including my ORCID on my website.
Bob Grove commented
Admin: PLEASE GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER ON THIS ONE. As noted by many, many people over a long period of time, the one-at-a-time delete function is indeed VERY cumbersome and time-consuming.
This really isn't good enough. This substantial problem was acknowledged almost a year ago and still no solution is offered. DOI matching is surely simple to implement. Many other publication databases also offer a manual merge function for records.
Rolf Sander commented
Unfortunately, ORCID is still useless for me as long as I have all these
duplicates in my list of papers. There is no need to wait months and
years for a fancy solution. Simply create a button saying: "Keep this
entry and delete all others with the same DOI".
A tool to assist the user for duplicates removal should have been developed well before thinking about integration with other databeses such as ResearchID, Scopus, ... . The multiple selection is also missed. Come on!
This major problem is still hanging around. As others have commented, this makes ORCID unusable. I had thought of updating my records from ResearcherID today, but until ORCID fix this issue I'll stay well away.
The easiest way to do this would be to allow free sorting of works in the editing window. This would be a useful feature on its own and should take all of 30 min to implement. Then it would be relatively easy to remove (delete) duplicate works. Although I do think that automatic duplicate removal would be useful too (for those with hundreds of papers). I gave this feature the highest priority.
Igor Reva commented
My ORCID number is 0000-0001-5983-7743
I have co-authored more than 100 publications.
Imported them once from Researcher ID, and twice from SCOPUS
Curretnly my ORCID record has more than 300 records, most of them triplicated.
Cleaning this is a big pain...
The easiest way of identifying articles as unique might be by DOI (Digital Object Identifier).
Can it be somehow implemented to avoid multiplication of already existing records?
Elston Van Steenburgh commented
I don't think an author should be subjected to this orcid torture. I want to submit a paper for publication, not fool around with expired links just to get started. Some start! I quit.
David W. Lawrence commented
For journal articles, matching can approach 100% through the use of
the first few title words
author and second author names
beginning page number or location number for online articles or doi
publication year isn't so important because there can be confusion between ahead-of-print items and final versions that cross years.
It is unnecessary to perfectly match everything every time. Give us an easy way to edit and delete our things.
Just re-checked, I still have loads of duplicates (from ResearcherID) and can't delete all at once. Makes ORCID unusable. As people have been saying for more than a year!
Well, as a minimun, you must make creata an automatic system which can identify when the same item has been imported from researcherID and from SCOPUS.
It is a big pain for the author to go through all the duplicates that your automatic system has created. And this duplication is re-made each time I import e.g. from SCOPUS.
I will refuse to remove the duplicates until you provide something which works better for the authors.
So in case you want a clean and good database and if you want the authors to do work for free for you, you must take care of this issue immedieately!
A merge tool could be used, so that the user could combine duplicate entries, into one with complete information, such as page number and external link.
It would seem removing a simple tool to identify duplicate DOI's would be the first step in creating a tool to do this. Either that or a simple "select all works" then delete them followed by re-import from another source would do the trick.
I'm having the same issue, with the same publication being automatically imported from both PubMed and ResearcherID (with different metadata in each case). http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5610-6208
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to fix this - ideally by automatically 'merging' these, or preventing one or the other from coming in at all? Any help gratefully received...
David Kaplan commented
I just added a bunch of paper to my account and it ended up pulling in numerous duplicates. Is this still not fixed?
My account is: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6087-359X
Rolf Sander commented
ORCID is great but these duplicates are a serious problem that needs to
be fixed soon! However, nothing has been happening for almost a whole
year now. Until this is fixed, ORCID is quite useless for me. I agree
that a perfect solution is difficult to obtain but please offer at least
the option to delete duplicates which have the same DOI. Soon! If
possible, yesterday :-)
Nick Finer commented
This is crazy - what is the point of allowing or nat least not providing automatic delation of hundreds of duplicates?
That is to remove all the unwanted, duplicated files from your machine. Software name is DuplicateFilesDeleter.
The explanation that this is caused by citation being at all different (such as including an external link, or page number) makes no sense: I imported my ResearcherID works, and then did the same again, and each time I do this the counter increases. So even exact replications are added. All the worse because integration with ReasearcherID seems to be "officially supported".
I completely agree with the others commenters that this is a *major* problem that should be *easy* to fix (even if not perfectly) on *short* notice.