Improve grouping / deduplication of publications
When updating an ORCID record from various literature sources like Scopus, CrossRef, own entries, Pure, it happens easily that duplicates are not automatically being detected and hidden in the public view. Instead, you have to manually go through the list and hide duplicates. Only, if records contain the same doi the deduplication works.
Could this please be improved? Please try to establish a robust deduplication algorithm.
Thanks for your iDea to improve the ORCID registry.
The way the ORCID interface works is that publications which have the same identifier (e.g. PMID, DOI) with the same “self” relationship are grouped together into one item. This way a publication isn’t listed multiple times if you added it from multiple sources, such as importing a publication from Scopus and ResearcherID. It looks like the problem on your record is that some of the items from ResearcherID were provided without an identifier.
If the identifiers are the same on two works which are not grouping, then the likely cause is due to the identifiers not sharing the same case (e.g. DOI: 10.0281/1234A.03 and DOI: 10.0281/1234a.03 ). Currently the ORCID Registry processes all identifiers as being case sensitive. This is a known issue — some identifiers are case sensitive, whilst others, such as DOIs, are not.
Our team recognize this issue and are addressing it by cataloguing our identifiers, their case sensitivity, and other validity issues, then putting these into effect and potentially sharing some of the data in the identifiers API (https://pub.orcid.org/v2.0/identifiers/ ). The initial cataloguing of identifier case sensitivity has just completed, and we will be moving to phase two of the project — implementing that information gathered, such as case insensitivity.
If you are finding this not to be the case, please contact email@example.com with your specific examples. We shall shortly merge this iDea into the related iDea https://support.orcid.org/forums/175591/suggestions/16897273
ORCID Community Team
Martin Rittner commented
I see this happening even WHEN the DOI is the same, because of differences in the "URL" field (seems to be mainly Scopus' fault)...