You have nearly a thousand people pointing to the challenge of the way that ORCID can be used when merging data from different sources - duplicates etc. Although you claim the suggestion is completed - on any level of quality it is not. The reason is actually clear - you say "This is because a key principle of ORCID is that the party who adds information to an ORCID record is the party responsible for that information, and we do not add or edit that data." Data about works naturally arrives from different sources with different information. It is obviously impossible for individual organisations to follow what other organisations will do - so they cannot merge the data - it has to be the platform, and merging is definitely adding information. So in any workable system your "key" principle needs to be broken. Take responsibility for creating a useful merged "parent" record (based on robust matching - not logical matching - using titles, authors, page length, common text, ...) for every work and the value of orcid for works will shoot up. Now, it is a massive time consumer for those who have to use it for research reporting etc. (see request with 948 votes: create a function to remove duplicates in "works")
Please sign in to leave a comment.