[Taxacom] Forcing ORCID on researchers

Shorthouse, David davidpshorthouse at gmail.com
Mon Dec 7 08:50:31 CST 2020

> "*Rather, I think the main drivers come from the publishing industry,
> funders, and academia, who see value in being able to identify people, and
> hence accurately measure their academic contributions (be it authoring,
> reviewing, getting grants, etc.).*"
> I agree about the main drivers and I will comment on this. To save me some
> time, please introduce to this list the ORCID funding model, with the
> history of early funders and today's main funders. That's where we should
> start.

Carlos, you imply here that ORCID's governance & direction are
susceptible to corruption by its funders. That might be construed by
some to be libellous & so it would be wise to state specific examples.
Perhaps I am naive, but I see this relationship no different than that
between GBIF and its funders – there are a handful of countries that
pay the majority of its operating budget. I would assume there are
checks and balances baked into ORCID's bylaws & decision-making
processes just as there would be for GBIF's. Here's the list of
ORCID's sponsors: https://orcid.org/about/community/sponsors. Maybe we
should be asking how much of membership dues contribute to ORCID's
operating budget vs those from large sponsors, if that's capped & what
are the checks & balances.

Let's assume ORCID is here to stay & that now or at some point in the
future, we do in fact accumulate evidence of corruption that
unequivocally expresses a negative impact on someone's career. What
then? Who is the claimant? Would it be wise of us as a community to
now obtain an active seat at the table?


More information about the Taxacom mailing list