The ORCiD unique author identifier, run by a non-profit organisation, has been around for a number of years now. Its stated goal is to become a de facto standard for uniquely identifying authors, even in cases where they have non-unique names, have changed their name, or have had their name appear in different variants on different publications. A large number of organisations, including the American Mathematical Society, have signed up to the system. (However, integration with MathSciNet has not happened so far.)
At the moment, users maintain their own record manually, but there is a possibility that papers would eventually be added automatically to a record as they appear, as the functionality of publishers automatically updating records has recently been implemented. According to this link, the metadata provided by publishers to Crossref for assigning a DOI includes ORCiD identifiers, and Crossref will at some point start to automatically update corresponding the records of those users who have permitted this.
However, this raises the question of how the ORCiD identifier is provided to the publisher in the first place. So far my experience has been that few journals have the option of including such an identifier either at submission or acceptance. (Of course, this may change with recent developments). At some point, I saw some advice - which unfortunately I am now unable to locate - to routinely list your ORCiD within the text of the paper. I wonder what the best way of doing so would be.
Question. Is there by now an accepted way (in mathematics) of including an ORCiD as part of the author information, say when using LaTeX with the amsart article class? If so, what is it?
I would also be interested to hear whether this would actually be worthwhile:
Is there any evidence that journals, as part of their processing, will pick up on ORCiD identifiers listed in papers and pass these on automatically as part of the metadata?
Nb. While my main question concerns LaTeX usage, I feel that it is not primarily a technical question, but rather one concerning academic practice, and specifically within mathematics. Hence mathoverflow seems an appropriate place for it, rather than tex.stackexchange or academiae.stackexchange. But of course if others disagree I am open to migrating.
(The lead-in to this question has been edited to be more factual, removing some of my personal opinions on the identifier system that may be irrelevant.)