Earlier this month, the article “Some reflections on the current PID landscape – with an emphasis on risks and trust issues” was published, giving an interim report from the scidecode project on “Risks and Trust in pursuit of a well functioning Persistent Identifier infrastructure” , the project itself is almost finished. Knowledge Exchange, which commissioned us, plans to publish the report in January 2022. Along with the report, seven case studies on PIDs will also be published, namely:

1. The role of research funders in the consolidation of the PI landscape
2. Adoption of DAI in the Netherlands and subsequent superseding by ORCID/ISNI
3. The gradual implementation of organisational identifiers
4. Persistent identifiers for research instruments and facilities: an emerging PID domain in need of coordination
5. The International Generic Sample Number (IGSN): Success by relying on best practices and brand effects
6. RePEc Author Service (RAS): A community-driven service, successful against all odds
7. Failed PIDs and non-reliable PID implementations

While waiting for the publication of the report and case studies, perhaps you would like to read the article mentioned at the beginning of this posting.

Abstract:

“The current landscape around persistent identifiers (PIDs) keeps quickly evolving. Some PIDs like Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) for publications and datasets or ORCIDs (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) for persistent author identification are already well-established, but there is also a whole additional range of emerging identifiers in the research area, often being implemented under competing approaches. These include among others identifiers for organisations (OrgIDs), for research grants (grantIDs), and projects (RAIDs), for research equipment and facilities (PIDINSTs) and for physical samples (IGSNs).

This is then a timely moment to explore the risks and trust-related issues associated with an ever wider implementation of PIDs. Following an earlier work on ‘risks and trust in pursuit of a well-functioning Persistent Identifier infrastructure for research’ conducted by the Knowledge Exchange (KE) Task & Finish Group on PIDs, the KE commissioned a study in July 2021 to look deeper into these issues. This work, undertaken by the signatories of this paper, will result in the publication of a report and a series of case studies on specific areas of current PID development. At the time the CRIS2022 Conference takes place the work is still underway, but already advanced enough to describe its methodology, early findings, landscape analysis and early recommendations. The full project results are expected to be published by the KE by the end of 2022.”

De Castro, P., Herb, U., Rothfritz, L., & Schöpfel, J. (2022). Some reflections on the current PID landscape – with an emphasis on risks and trust issues. Procedia Computer Science, 211, 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.10.173

• Author
• Recent Posts

Ulrich Herb

Graduate sociologist, information scientist (PhD degree), working for the Saarland University and State Library (Germany), associate of scidecode science consulting – De Castro, Herb, Rothfritz GbR.
Visit my profile at scidecode or
ORCID: 0000-0002-3500-3119

Latest posts by Ulrich Herb (see all)

• Case Study: The role of research funders in the consolidation of the PID landscape - 29. November 2022
• Published : Some reflections on the current PID landscape - 21. November 2022
• Changes at scidecode - 15. November 2022