[Taxacom] Forcing ORCID on researchers

Tony Rees tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 7 16:36:22 CST 2020

As a follow up to the above, not too long ago I was interested in trying to
discover academic papers authored by my late father (d. 2006), who was a
geographer. He wrote books - thus has a VIAF ID, issued externally by a
consortium of libraries in which his books reside, but I did not find a
single easy way to discover/aggregate/publish a listing of his articles.
Since he is deceased, many systems e.g. ORCID are not interested in issuing
a relevant identifier, which seems a lost opportunity (same for the
multitude of deceased authors in taxonomy).

For what it's worth, there is a different Tony Rees to myself who writes
books, has a VIAF ID (I do not - not being a book author, and cannot get
one), and to whom some of my journal articles have been attributed in error
(even though they are not books) in VIAF. I tried to get this undone, but
did not get very far. Better data cleaning methods / user control obviously

Regards - Tony

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 08:31, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> John Grehan wrote:
> " I live with it, but don't like it."
> I live with it too, but quite like it, as it provides (one) route to link
> together my various scientific contributions, in a manner that others can
> find, both now, and also in the future, when eventually I will no longer be
> around (on the vague hope that some of my work may have a value to others
> down the track). As stated earlier (though the links seem to have got
> mangled by the copy/paste process I used from iPhylo), for this purpose I
> presently utilise the services of (all of) Google Scholar, ResearcherID,
> ORCID, Researchgate and academia.edu, on the basis that this increases
> the chance that my work might be found (or stumbled upon) by someone using
> any one of these routes. I do not see any one of these as more of an
> intrusion of my privacy than any other; also if one or more is embedded in
> someone else's commercial enterprise, I really do not object. Also in 50
> (or 100) years time, would anyone like to make a punt as to which will
> still be around? My money is for the identifier issued, and maintained, by
> someone whose business model depends on it... (probably applies to
> headstones in graveyards as well).
> Best - Tony
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> https://about.me/TonyRees
> www.irmng.org
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 06:50, John Grehan via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>> It was interesting to see the range of conversation about this matter.
>> Seems to settle on two points 1) lack of choice, 2) exploitation of
>> information.
>> I can sympathise with the first most definitely and personally I would
>> prefer not to have to have an ORCID number - its a poisonous 'orchid' as
>> far as I am concerned. But there are many things in life over which I have
>> no choice. There are all sorts of rules in our town about how high I can
>> build a fence on my property and how far I can build next to a neighbor
>> for
>> example.  Or there is a speed limit on my driving etc.  There are lots of
>> forces limiting my choice, many agreeable, many not so much. But I have to
>> live with them regardless.
>> Exploitation of my information by others is also objectionable to me, but
>> again not much I can do about it if I want to publish in certain venues. I
>> live with it, but don't like it.
>> Cheers, John Grehan

More information about the Taxacom mailing list