Comments

7 comments

  • Official comment
    Alainna Wrigley

    Thanks for your suggestion to improve the ORCID Registry.

    Could you please share further information on how you would expect student/PhD supervision to work on the ORCID record? Could this be considered a type of "service" to an institution -- as proposed for the new affiliation types? See here: https://orcid.org/blog/2017/10/19/expanding-affiliations-calling-community-comment

    Warm regards,
    ORCID Community Team

    Comment actions Permalink
  • David Gonzalez
    The profile shows education, jobs, projects, and works. For an ideal academic profile, it would be interesting if it also shows info related to human resources trained. Maybe links to Orcid id of former Ph.D. and postdocs students or a similar idea.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Jürgen Laudien
    The supervision of students may definitely be regarded as “service” to an institution if the researcher is not employed by the latter. But it may also be regarded as a duty. If not implemented under the new affiliation type “Membership and Service” a new category may be introduced, in my opinion this would have a comparable level as “funding”. Thus I'd suggest to sort it just before or after "works". Warm regards , Jürgen Laudien
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • J.
    The concept of supervision is complicated and probably various across countries. I believe it would be very important to clearly identify what should be recorded, e.g. main supervisor, co-supervisor, supervisory committee? If this gets manually entered by a professor who claims to have supervised student x identified through an ORCID ID (person-person relationship), would student x get to approve this and thus confirm that the relationship is correctly represented? Or does ORCID not worry about the validity of the data?
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • ORCID (APAC)
    @J: Any data that an individual self-asserts is noted on the ORCID record -- the source will be listed as "Source: ORCID iD holder's name" in the user interface, and it will be listed as "source-orcid-id" in the API. If it is asserted by the organization which, for example, employed the individual as a researcher, then the source will be listed as "Source: Organization Name" in the user interface, and the organization's API client be listed as "source-orcid-client" in the API. This allows the parties reading the ORCID record to know who is the source of the data and consider that data accordingly.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • David Gonzalez
    Every addition to ORCID is marked with the origin of the info so there is no problem with "validity of the data". I think that maybe a short menu of options can be provided. For example PhD supervisor, MSc Supervisor, Postdoc supervisor, member of the evaluation committee, etc.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • szelong
    In one of our research information management systems, we track advisors and co-advisors in this same sense. This in turn relates to theses as a type of work. So on a system profile, one can see how many theses a professor or instructor has advised or co-advised. Traditionally, advisor and co-advisor information was collected very sparsely in our systems, using citation notations (e.g. Smith K.), or even stored as CSV, making it almost impossible to make sense of. We're changing this using a auto suggest and "tagging" approach. It would be incredibly useful to incorporate advisor (if not also mentor) as a kind of affiliation/role. Thinking more, I guess type of service is more correct, since advising is a temporal activity whereas an affiliation/role is indefinite.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.