Abstract
AbstractAuthor disambiguation has been a key component of scientific communication since the mid‐19th century, and now more than ever. This paper discusses the use of ORCID as a digital identity platform in Social Sciences and Humanities, by analysing the adoption of ORCID in the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of the University of Porto using a manual‐qualitative method. The results show a discrepancy between the use of ORCID as an ID and as an author record. Even though 90.4% of the sample studied had an ORCID iD, the records were found to be incomplete for disambiguation purposes. The ‘Also known as’ field was used by only 31% of the 170 profiles analysed, less than half of the profiles had completed the ‘Country’ field and the ‘Peer review’ field is hardly used. An important finding is the inconsistency in affiliation information recorded in the ‘Employment’ field. We verified that keeping profiles updated and complete requires interoperability and the role of ORCID‐trusted organizations, such as the FCT in Portugal. In conclusion, it was found that a university's institutional strategy, the organizational culture and a mediation process will help improve the correct adoption of ORCID.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
