How can we be certain who authors really are? Why ORCID is important to the British Journal of Dermatology

My wife and I have common spotted orchids growing in our field. Each year, they increase in number, and are now too numerous to count. I mention this to help readers remember the term ORCID, the true focus of this editorial, and to make a comparison to illustrate a point. The Wikipedia entry for this lovely little wild flower, Dactylorhiza fuchsii, highlights an issue: ‘This plant belongs to a problematic group of orchids. D. fuchsii is very variable in flower colour and flower morphology, plant height and the scent of flowers. This is due to the ease of introgression (the transfer of genetic material from one sympatric species to another only partially isolated from the first, through interspecific hybridization and repeated backcrossing to a parental species), the ability of these plants to adapt quickly and easily to habitat and different substrates and possibly other causes. As a result, a multitude of forms have been defined for this plant. The World Checklist of Kew Gardens lists over 25 varieties, of which 7 are recognized as valid.’ Fellow dermatologists will not be surprised to hear that I am sometimes to be found in our field on hands and knees, examining these orchids. What an extraordinary plant it is! No two are the same, yet they all look similar. The lanceshaped leaves vary in number from two to seven; some are without spots, while others have multiple dark purple spots, best examined with a dermatoscope. It was only when my dermatologist’s eye had become imprinted by these leaves that I noted that there were also orchids growing in our lawn; every Saturday during the summer was orchid carnage. I could sense the frustration of the Wikipedia author with such biological diversity for a single variant of orchid. Perhaps he/she would sympathize in turn with BJD section editors when faced with the challenge of trying to identify the correct Smith, Lee, Ali, Jones or Khan from our database of peer reviewers? I recently tried to find a reference for one of my own publications on PubMed; it was not under ‘Anstey A’. I then tried ‘Anstey AV’ (I intermittently use my middle initial in publications) and was surprised to find another 81 publications, all of them my work. Luckily for me, Anstey is an uncommon name on PubMed. However, others are less fortunate. Many researchers have names shared with others, and are faced with an ongoing challenge to distinguish their research from that of others. Some authors have the added complication of changing their name through marriage (or divorce), once or more during their professional careers. Ideally, they need to be able to attach their own identity easily and uniquely to all of their own research outputs including original articles, datasets, blogs, opinion pieces, scholarly letters, patents and grant applications. Academics typically collaborate with colleagues across disciplines and institutions and in other countries. This raises the prospect of interacting with multiple information systems, each of which may require entry of their personal data. If researchers possessed a unique identifier that could ensure that they were credited with all of their personal academic research outputs, life would be much easier. So, why don’t these authors sign up for an ORCID unique identifier to ensure that credit is given where credit is due? What is ORCID? ‘ORCID is an open, non-profit, community-driven effort to create and maintain a registry of unique researcher identifiers and a transparent method of linking research activities and outputs to these identifiers. ORCID is unique in its ability to reach across disciplines, research sectors and national boundaries. It is a hub that connects researchers and research through the embedding of ORCID identifiers in key workflows, such as research profile maintenance, manuscript submissions, grant applications, and patent applications.’ What does ‘ORCID’ stand for? ORCID is an acronym for Open Researcher and Contributor ID. It is intended that the ORCID number will become the de facto standard author identifier in research, much as the digital object identifier (doi) has become for scientific papers and data. When did ORCID start operating and who runs it? ORCID was launched in December 2009 and is run as an independent nonprofit organization in Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A. ORCID is governed by an elected board of directors, most of whom are from not-for-profit organizations. There are 14 members of the board of directors, representing the global scholarly research community; they are drawn from the ORCID member organizations. ORCID has the following mission: ‘to solve the name ambiguity problem in research and scholarly communications by creating a central registry of unique identifiers for individual researchers and an open and transparent linking mechanism between ORCID and other current researcher ID schemes. These identifiers, and the relationships among them, can be linked to the researcher’s output to enhance the scientific discovery process and to improve the efficiency of research funding and collaboration within the research community.’ ORCID was backed at its launch by 23 member organizations, and now includes well over 100. These member organizations pay an annual membership fee that contributes to paying the running costs of ORCID. Of these organizations, more than 20 are publishers, including Wiley. It is therefore