Timeline for Listing ORCiD in LaTeX papers
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 8 at 21:57 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Ben Webster♦ | ||
| Jun 9, 2019 at 22:05 | comment | added | sara daas | help me please how can I add orcid id logo to IEEEtran latex article | |
| Dec 6, 2017 at 12:01 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 6, 2017 at 16:43 | |||||
| Aug 24, 2016 at 23:07 | answer | added | Lasse Rempe | timeline score: 10 | |
| Aug 21, 2015 at 8:22 | vote | accept | Lasse Rempe | ||
| Aug 21, 2015 at 8:22 | comment | added | Lasse Rempe | @ChristianClason A potential benefit of a standard author identifier even for those who fall entirely within the scope of MR is through integration with unviersity systems. Each year all our researchers have to enter their publications into a system for the purpose of annual review, and it is an absolute pain (it doesn't help that the system changes regularly ...). If this could be populated automatically, it would be much easier. They'll never integrate with MSN for just one department, but with a universal system there is a chance - and indeed it seems some universities might already do so. | |
| Aug 21, 2015 at 8:11 | comment | added | Lasse Rempe | @ChristianClason You are right that the MR author identifier is outstanding, and is maintained manually. In the more applied areas of mathematics, or in mathematical physics, there will however be plenty of people for whom not all papers are captured by MR, so a field-independent identifier should benefit them. | |
| Aug 21, 2015 at 8:07 | comment | added | Lasse Rempe | @ChristianClason Ha - touché. Federico makes a good point though - and thanks to him, I have finally been bothered to notice and activate the "unsubscribe" button on the ResearchGate emails. :) | |
| Aug 19, 2015 at 18:17 | comment | added | Christian Clason | @JoelDavidHamkins From what I have read, the aim ORCiD is much more like MathSciNet's author disambiguation (which to my knowledge is still manual) than the other sites you mention. The benefit is mainly for other disciplines that are not blessed with such a diligent institution (and maybe also for MathSciNet, which could then focus its limited resources elsewhere). | |
| Aug 19, 2015 at 18:14 | comment | added | Christian Clason | @LasseRempe-Gillen I believe Joel did not imply that your question counts as spam; his frustration with Research Gate and Academia.edu -- both of which do send out quite a large amount of spam -- was probably just shining a bit too brightly through his comment. | |
| Aug 19, 2015 at 11:43 | answer | added | Carlo Beenakker | timeline score: 11 | |
| Aug 19, 2015 at 10:59 | history | edited | Lasse Rempe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited the question to be more factual
|
| Aug 19, 2015 at 10:46 | comment | added | Lasse Rempe | FWIW - I think a good question explains why the poster is interested in it, and some enthusiasm hardly makes it "spam". I have no connections to the ORCiD system, apart from being a user (and having felt for a while that such a system was long overdue). | |
| Aug 19, 2015 at 10:42 | comment | added | Lasse Rempe | @JoelDavidHamkins It seems to me inappropriate and uncollegial to label a fellow user's question, posed in good faith, as "spam". Upon rereading it again, I might agree that my enthusiasm for the concept is shining through a bit too brightly in the question, and I may edit my question in response. After all, MathOverflow questions are not for advertising, be it identifier systems or mathematical results. But that point could have easily been made in a collegial and constructive manner. | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 21:50 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | @JoelDavidHamkins Re spam: try clicking on "unsubscribe" at the bottom of their emails. It works. I haven't received a message from academia.edu or researchgate in months. | |
| Aug 13, 2015 at 11:11 | comment | added | Lasse Rempe | @JoelDavidHamkins I think this may not be the place to discuss the merits or otherwise of author identifiers, but note that ORCiD is non-profit, and that its stated goal is to provide a de-facto standard. Given the number of institutions (publishers/libraries/etc) that have signed up, it seems quite plausible that it will indeed achieve this. Furthermore, compared to any other system I have tried, it is actually already really easy to import the information into your record (thanks e.g. to the CrossRef integration). Of course, MathSciNet integration would be even better. | |
| Aug 13, 2015 at 1:00 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | How is ORCid different from the numerous other author/researcher aggregators, such as Research Gate or Academia.edu, from which we all receive spam, or from Google Scholar, LinkedIn or even the arxiv or MathSciNet itself? | |
| Aug 12, 2015 at 12:25 | comment | added | Lasse Rempe | @FedericoPoloni Fair point - although not all journals use those (often rather annoying) editorial assistants, and instead allow submission by an email to the editor. In this case presumably someone along the way picks out the title and the authors, at least! | |
| Aug 12, 2015 at 12:13 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | Currently most journals do not pick up automatically from LaTeX even the title of the article, which would be trivial in many cases. You have to add it manually in a textbox when submitting. So all I can see happening in the near future is them adding an "insert your ORCiD number here" textbox to their submission process. | |
| Aug 12, 2015 at 11:53 | history | asked | Lasse Rempe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |