Thank you for your suggestion to improve the ORCID registry.
Could you please provide further information about the tagging and filtering proposed? It would be useful if you could provide a single example.
ORCID Community Engagement and Support
Thanks for the suggestion. We agree that adding a way to mark up text based formulas would be a nice feature. However, it won’t fit in our near term development plan as right now we’re focused on release new features to make the entire Registry more robust. We’ll review this suggestion once we have more developer time and as the demand grows.
ORCID SupportGerard Ridgway supported this idea ·
We’ve combined a couple suggestions about researcher roles into this idea where we can keep you updated with progress. ORCID is planning to review the role options that we capture and how those roles are displayed shortly. We will be including all the ideas proposed in the forum in that review and will provide an update once that review is done. If you have any more suggestions for roles please leave them as a comment on this idea.
ORCID SupportGerard Ridgway commented
I agree that reviewing needs to be more valued, but I am not sure that ORCID is the right place to do this...
Regarding Jackie's comment here, adding a "reviewer" role to publication entries would only be appropriate for works whose reviewers were not anonymous. As far as I am aware, this is a very small minority (e.g. the Frontiers series, http://frontiersin.org, but not many other journals).
On the other hand, being able to add a list of journals for which one has reviewed to ones ORCID profile seems superficially very appealing, but it would be very difficult to avoid abuse. If someone claims to have reviewed for Nature, it would be difficult to challenge this, particularly if ORCs (to coin a phrase for those with ORCIDs) listed reviewing duties from the distant past (e.g. the current staff of Nature might not have complete records of all reviewers going back many years...).
On reflection, I think it should be the individual journal's responsibility to acknowledge their reviewers appropriately, from year to year, using their own records of who reviewed for them (and how much, and perhaps even of what quality -- see http://www.peerageofscience.org)
Great suggestion. This is on our list of things to do, it just doesn’t have a high priority. I’ve listed the idea as under review as we will need to have staff look into it further before we make any changes.