Comments

29 comments

  • stuart.taylor
    I strongly support this. Many of my works imported without their DOIs. So I tried to add them manually, but was unable to. I don't think we should assume every works arrives "perfect" so it would be really good to have the ability to edit records.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Tim Kittel
    I endorse such an effort. I also have found errors in imported citations.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Chia Wei Hsu
    I strongly agree. I have works imported from Scopus that have errors in the author names but I am unable to fix the error.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Greg Westin
    I manually added some citations because ORCID couldn't find them. Then I imported records from SCOPUS and now I have duplicates. It would be nice to be able to remove the ones I added manually.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Javier Merino
    Corrections should be done in source. What ORCID could help to is to propose the change to the source. But I really agree that the information should be the same as in the source (publishers).
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Michal Žemlička
    I suppose that a publication may have multiple views - as various imports may differ, it can be useful to show how they have been imported from various sources and how it should look like (after potential editing/correcting activities). Such solution preserves trustworthiness of the sources and enables users to provide correct data.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Manfred Staat
    In have added work manually and need to correct it. I understand that I should not modify work imported from publishers. But at the same time it would be undesirable to have wrong information exported from ORCID to e.g. SCOPUS.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Patty A. Gray
    At least allow editing of citations we have input manually; if you discover you have made even a small typo, you have to delete the entry and start all over again just to correct it.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Anne Hollingworth
    If we put in citations manually, we should be able to edit them.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Ian Kemp
    I support the users below. It's ridiculous that if we enter a citation manually, we only get one bite at the cherry and if we omit something or make a mistake, it's stuck there permanently. Should distinguish between manually entered and automatically imported entries - this is simply a basic flaw in program design and should be given top priority to fix as it makes the site unusable as a repository of correctly verified information. Also the system has correctly displayed DOI's but not the ISBN for my book. I note that nothing seems to have been done about this by ORCIS since April, so this to me reduces ORCIS' credibility considerably.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Grant McAuley
    A few suggestions about editing records: Two suggested principles: 1) Data about a 'work' could be classified as: i) 'source editable', or ii) 'account owner editable' 2) The source of the information (only) should have the authority *and responsibility* to make a correction to items in the source editable category. By 'source' I mean the entity that provided the data to ORCID (eg, Scopus through and automated import, or the account owner who manually created a record), Egs: A 'source editable' data item would include title and page number range. An 'account owner editable' item would be paper url. So, if I enter a record myself, I should be able to change everything in it. If I find an error in say the title or page range in data that came from Scopus, I should be able to make a correction and click a button that sends the correction to Scopus. Scopus, will then make the change and reimport it. (Scopus already is notified when a user make a correction before import, so similar code is already in place. Also, Scopus is very glad to get 'free' correction info). If I want to change a url that came from Scopus to one that points to eg an institutional repository (or add a new one to TR WOS in addition the Scopus url), I should be able to do that myself b/c this is not really a fundamental property of the citation, but only where to find it or related information (very useful, but not essential)
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Roy Kaufman
    I agree too that we should be able to edit items added manually. I want to supplement what I added the first time without having to delete and retype the whole entry.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Sergey Dorozhkin
    The best (and easiest) way to proceed with this problem would be adding a button "to remove all publications" - this will provide an opportunity to export publications from other databases, such as Google scholar, Scopus, Research ID, Mendeley, etc, in which the problem of publication editing has been solved.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Ulli Steiner
    Support: we should be able to edit manual entries only. These should be marked as such, to distinguish them from the records that were imported from a recognised source
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Sergio Callegari
    I guess you do not have the authority that comes from having unedited citations directly imported from publishers anyway. In fact if the data for a publication is wrong, most people will prefer to erase it and manually create a new publication.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Anonymous
    It's non-sense not to allow users to edit manual entries. I will not bother with ORCID any longer until this obvious flaw gets fixed.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Anonymous
    I think we should be able to edit entries manually entered as otherwise have to delete the whole entry and start again...which puts me off using this site altogether
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Carlos Veloso da Veiga
    I agree with those who say that: " It's non-sense not to allow users to edit manual entries. I will not bother with ORCID any longer until this obvious flaw gets fixed."
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • pippa smart
    I concur with the problems about letting individuals edit publication details - however would there be a possibility of "suggesting" a change to be communicated back to the source? (e.g. many of my works are book reviews - but on ORCID it seems as if I am claiming credit for writing the work that actually I am only reviewing because the type of work is "unspecified" - I would like to suggest that they are all tagged as "book reviews" to avoid any accusations of plagiarism). Thanks for considering this.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Andrea
    I support editing publications, at least those manually entered. Every time I make a mistake or miss a field, I need to delete and recreate the record. It would be acceptable to edit only a few fields, those not compulsory to enter the record. I also support your view to prevent editing of citations imported from publishers, but these should be distinguished (internally) from those manually entered. A database design distinguishing between system created and user created records would be advantageous. The former could be editable on request through some administrator (so only critical corrections would be made) and the latter (at least non-essential fields) should be editable by the user directly. If "authority" is of concern, as your reply states, then users can still delete a record and create a new one as they wish. I would lock all records after some time, making them editable only through the on request system as suggested. That would prevent undue tampering of the database and maintain a balance between user friendliness and authoritativeness.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Chris Keene
    Crossref data is as good as that submitted by publishers, an article of mine includes html markup in the title and other fields which i can't remove.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Zack Weinberg
    My "unedited citations directly imported from publishers" are consistently _wrong_ in ways that cannot be corrected at source, because they reflect a disagreement between me and the publisher. The most important example of this is that I want the URL field for all of my publications to be the freely-available CC-licensed copy on my personal website, which _I_ consider the authoritative version. ACM and IEEE have their own opinions, and they are welcome to them in _their_ bibliography database, but not here.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Christopher Berry
    Especially important for adding arXiv version of paper which the publisher will not usually supply, but is freely readable to everyone.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Jim Dukarm
    It would be easy to add an "origin" flag to distinguish between imported vs. manually created material, if you want to preserve "authority." At the very least, please provide a way to view and copy the form contents before the user has to delete the item and re-enter all the details. The lame pop-up that is currently displayed by mousing over the plus graphic is not copyable, and even scrolling it to view the bottom information is tricky.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Alberto Simões
    I just added a publication manually and typed 2013 instead of 2014. Now I need to remove it and include it all again. #fail.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Chris Thompson
    I accept the idea that direct citations from the publishers is authoritative. However, this is undermined by the idea that you allow deletions. Deletions and manual replacement is simply an inconvenient way of allowing the owner to update the record. So you do not appear to have authority, you have only removed convenience. In my case an article has appeared on-line and I wish to add the DOI.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Anonymous
    Please stop using the word "loose" when you mean to say "lose." It is not helping your credibility.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Anonymous
    Once Published, research work is intellectual property of the published and therefore EDITING in published work is beyond consideration
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Ana Cardoso

    We've just released a new interface for ORCID records that allows editing of publications which you entered and allows you to make a copy and edit publications added from a third party source.

    The announcement for the new interface is at http://orcid.org/blog/2014/12/11/new-feature-friday-new-orcid-record-interface

    Best,
    -Catalina
    ORCID Support

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.