ROR on Crossref

Insights from a roundtable on author affiliation metadata

Amanda French — Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000

It’s been said that Americans are unusual in tending to ask “Where do you work?” as an initial question upon introduction to a new acquaintance, indicating a perhaps unhealthy preoccupation with work as identity. But in the context of published research, “What is this author’s affiliation?” is a question of global importance that goes beyond just wanting to know the name – and perhaps prestige level – of the place a researcher works.

When collected, used, and analyzed at scale, data about author affiliations can provide intriguing insights about international collaboration trends, signal trust and lack of trust in particular research institutions, generate business intelligence for publishers, help universities track the work their researchers do, help funders demonstrate the impact of their funding, and much more.

In November we partnered with OA Switchboard to organize a roundtable on author affiliation metadata for the Crossref community, service and infrastructure providers, production vendors, data scientists, researchers, and librarians. We aimed to bring together scholarly information professionals with many diverse perspectives; ultimately, participants from more than 40 organizations joined the roundtable to share their experiences and their thoughts.

In focusing on a single type of metadata, we hoped to focus our discussions, as well. Similarly, in October the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information organized a roundtable on “Moving Funding Metadata Forward” in which it became clear that “improving the quality and coverage of funding metadata was on the agenda of many organisations and there was a strong interest in collaborating on practical next steps.”

While many of the issues and solutions discussed at both roundtables are similar, in the course of the author affiliation metadata roundtable we identified some unique challenges as well as benefits related to this particular flavor of information. In this blog post, I’ll share these insights.

Insights from presenters

I opened the roundtable with a brief introduction and a working definition of affiliation metadata: names and/or identifiers such as Research Organization Registry (ROR) IDs for organizations where research was conducted or with which authors and contributors are associated, usually officially, as in their place of employment.

Next, to create a shared context for discussion, we heard four presentations on the current state of author affiliation metadata, its importance, and Crossref’s ongoing initiative to enhance it automatically.

Nees Jan van Eck of Leiden University’s Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) shared observations on the state of author affiliations from a preprint titled “Crossref as a source of open bibliographic metadata” that presents the findings of an analysis performed annually since 2021. Nees’s key points:

Crossref is a foundational data source for bibliographic metadata.
Affiliation metadata is available for only 1 out of 3 journal articles in Crossref for the period 2023-2024.
There is considerable variation in the extent to which Crossref members deposit affiliation metadata.
Downstream sources try to fill gaps using suboptimal approaches, leading to missing, inaccurate, and inconsistent linking of publications to institutions.
Publications lacking affiliation metadata in Crossref are less visible in bibliometric applications, analyses, studies, and tools (such as the open edition of the Leiden Ranking of over 2800 universities).

Next, Yvonne Campfens of OA Switchboard reiterated the desirability of the Crossref community providing complete and accurate author affiliation metadata at the source. Yvonne called upon publishers to “Integrate metadata creation in your systems and workflows before publication and relay it throughout the editorial, production, and publication processes.”

Yvonne pointed out that in the context of managing Open Access agreements, publishers ought to keep in mind that providing good affiliation metadata improves customer satisfaction, since institutions and consortia need to have that information in order to connect research to the correct organization. In closing, Yvonne featured best practices from OA Switchboard’s Data Quality Challenge:

eLife captures affiliations at submissions with “author select,” ensuring that ROR IDs are introduced early and verified before publication, coupled with a quality assurance process during proofing. (See also our piece on Metadata Excellence Award winner eLife.)
EMS Press captures metadata via manuscript extraction as early as at submission, building on globally valid identifiers whenever possible (ROR IDs, DOIs, ORCIDs).
Pensoft Publishers uses AI-assisted metadata extraction with human review and in-house metadata validation.
Beilstein-Institut performs post-acceptance metadata quality assurance through automation and expert review.
The Royal Society embeds metadata in OA payment and agreement workflows.
American Chemical Society (ACS) has a multi-method persistent identifier matching strategy with near-complete coverage.
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) combines AI-powered submission tools with editorial oversight via expert manual checks. (See also our piece on Metadata Excellence Award winner ASM.)
Rockefeller University Press (RUP) maintains ROR IDs across the full publishing workflow with “author select” at submission through metadata deposits upon publication. (See also the ROR case study on RUP.)

Adam Day of Clear Skies Ltd began his talk by wryly framing the first and second rules of data science as contradictory: “Never fix data: always use sources that produce high-quality data in the first place,” but also “Get good at fixing data, because you will have to.” Adam went on to demonstrate the central role author affiliation metadata plays in research integrity investigations, displaying anonymized data for institutions with a high number of alerts. In conclusion, Adam reiterated the importance of author affiliation metadata to research integrity efforts:

Data analysis is critical to research integrity.
Quality data helps enormously by giving oversight, saving time, and assisting investigations.

Lastly, our own Director of Technology Dominika Tkaczyk gave an account of our plans to enrich author affiliation metadata by matching organization name text strings to ROR IDs as part of our metadata matching initiative. A strategy for performing such matching has already been developed and tested and an open dataset of results made available. Tests on a set of 3,000 affiliations sampled from our metadata show that the strategy can be expected to match 95 million ROR IDs to organization names with 97.35% precision, an astronomical increase over the less than 1 million ROR IDs deposited in Crossref records to date.

Dominika concluded the presentation portion of the session by reiterating that our planned enrichment of author affiliation metadata

Will use flexible and transparent matching strategies (and open code),
Will welcome community participation in developing new strategies, and
Will be available in the REST API.

Automatic matching of organization names to ROR IDs in author affiliations cannot solve the problem of missing organization names, of course, but it represents a huge leap forward in addressing metadata quality issues.

All of our speakers’ presentations are available on Zenodo at https://doi-org.pluma.sjfc.edu/10.13003/661591chqlyw.

Insights into challenges

In the next stage of the event, participants broke into six breakout groups to identify factors contributing to incomplete or inaccurate affiliation metadata. Participants were pre-assigned to groups randomly by role to ensure a variety of perspectives in every discussion.

At least two participants, it should be noted, pointed out that it would be helpful to agree on a definition of “complete” and “accurate” affiliation metadata, which in itself is a challenge, and one we did not address in this roundtable. For instance, practices most recently have trended away from defining a complete author affiliation in open metadata as including an institutional address, although many internal databases might include such information separately.

Even without such definitions, however, all six groups were able to identify several general areas for attention, and one participant provided a particularly helpful categorization of these areas that is largely reused here.

Inherent data complexity

Research organizations have names in different languages, abbreviations, and many other name variants.
Research organizations have frequent name changes, mergers, and rebranding.
Research organizations have different degrees, levels, and complexity of hierarchical granularity, and authors, publishers, and software systems are often misaligned as to which level in an organization’s structure is appropriate to use in a particular instance.
Research organizations often lack official policies on how affiliations should be written, leading to hundreds of variations for a single institution.

Corresponding authors often submit information for all co-authors, which can lead to inaccuracies.
Many authors have multiple profiles across multiple submission systems, which can introduce errors.
Authors may have “octopus affiliations,” claiming affiliations with many institutions that are difficult to verify.
Authors may fail to update affiliations when changing institutions between manuscript acceptance and publication.
Authors may demonstrate “apathy” when repeatedly filling out submission forms, sometimes providing incomplete, inconsistent, or incorrect information.
On occasion, authors might even provide false or purchased affiliations, which of course is a significant research integrity concern.

Technical barriers

Many manuscript tracking and peer review systems, especially legacy systems, lack structured fields for affiliations or don’t support open organization identifiers like ROR.
Some systems limit authors to a single affiliation, despite many researchers having multiple institutional connections.
Some systems only collect affiliation information for the corresponding author.
Some systems link affiliations to user accounts instead of to publications.
Different systems use competing identifier registries, including proprietary identifier registries, creating interoperability challenges.

Publisher practices

Even when publishers improve current metadata collection practices, historical data correction is resource-intensive and often not prioritized.
Publishers collect affiliation information at submission but don’t ensure that it is maintained throughout all stages of the publication process and deposited in metadata.
Some publishers are unaware of the importance of author affiliation metadata or do not prioritize its improvement.
Some publishers deliberately choose not to deposit affiliation metadata to Crossref, viewing it as value-added information they’ve invested in curating.

Insights into solutions

Naturally, we didn’t rest at identifying challenges: after a break, we gathered in the same groups to brainstorm approaches to improving author affiliation metadata.

Adopt collective approaches

Collective action, where corrections and improvements made by various stakeholders flow back into shared systems, has historically worked for proprietary systems and could be even more powerful with open infrastructure.
Since those who do not provide metadata “upstream” will inevitably have it provided for them “downstream” by multiple separate entities using multifarious methods, provenance metadata indicating who asserted author affiliations and how (whether automatically or with the author’s or editor’s input) would help metadata users assess trust levels.

Engage authors and institutions

Reach out to authors and institutions to educate them on the need for more consistent affiliation reporting, especially in terms of language, name format, and degree of hierarchical granularity.
Demonstrate the benefit to institutions of maintaining accurate records in registries like ROR, including abbreviations and name variants.
Publishers and/or software systems should allow authors to review (though not necessarily edit) affiliation information during the proofing process to verify accuracy. Authors should not, however, need to know, see, or use ROR IDs.

Improve the tech

Publishers would welcome submission systems that incorporate structured fields for author affiliations with well-designed auto-suggestions linked to ROR or other organization identifiers.
Making affiliation data mandatory at submission could significantly improve capture rates, although it would be important to ensure that independent researchers can use these systems as well.
Enable collection of affiliations for all authors, not just the corresponding author.
Pull in verified affiliation information from ORCID.
Increasingly, intelligent matching systems can be implemented to reduce author burden and perhaps also increase accuracy and completeness of metadata.
Better crosswalks between different organization identifier systems would make it vastly easier for publishers to maintain better metadata. Since open registries cannot include proprietary information, proprietary registries should provide their customers with crosswalks to all standard open identifiers.

Encourage publisher best practices

Publishers can use already-available tools to help assess and improve the quality of both new and legacy author affiliation metadata.
Share the benefits of improved author affiliation metadata for internal and external analytics, customer satisfaction, and research integrity.
Identify best practices in collecting and structuring author affiliation metadata.
Understand that the entire research ecosystem would benefit from publishers sharing collected affiliation data with Crossref.

It’s worth mentioning that these solutions are heterogeneous: not all strategies can be implemented by any one actor nor even by any one sector of our profession. Clearly, collaborative action is necessary for substantive change.

Moving forward

The affiliations metadata roundtable represented an important step in addressing affiliation metadata challenges in a productive and collaborative way. If there was a consensus, it was that while perfect completeness and accuracy of author affiliation metadata may not be achievable (or even definable), incremental improvements can substantially enhance the quality and availability of affiliation metadata for the entire scholarly information community.

Here at Crossref, we intend to use the insights from this roundtable to inform our support of the Crossref community, including publishers, service providers, and metadata users. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions on this issue! Share your thoughts with Amanda French at alfrench@crossref.org.

References

van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2025). Crossref as a source of open bibliographic metadata (No. smxe5_v2). MetaArXiv. https://doi-org.pluma.sjfc.edu/10.31222/osf.io/smxe5_v2
Tkaczyk, D. (2025). Crossref relationships involving research organisations [Dataset]. Zenodo. https://doi-org.pluma.sjfc.edu/10.5281/zenodo.15254993
French, A., van Eck, N. J., Campfens, Y., Day, A., & Tkaczyk, D. (2026, January 19). Affiliations Metadata Roundtable 2025—All Presentations. https://doi-org.pluma.sjfc.edu/10.13003/661591chqlyw

Participating organizations


Africa PID Alliance / TCC Africa	Frontiers Media SA
American Association of Cancer Research (AACR)	Iowa State
American Chemical Society (ACS)	Kriyadocs / Exeter Premedia Services
American Physical Society (APS)	MDPI
American Society for Microbiology (ASM)	Noyam Publishers
Aptara	OpenAIRE / OpenOrgs
Australian Research Data Commons (ARDC)	Optica Publishing Group
Atypon	ORCID
Beilstein-Institut	Oxford University Press
California Digital Library (CDL)	Public Knowledge Project (PKP)
Cambridge University Press	Public Library of Science (PLOS)
Carnegie Mellon University	River Valley Technologies
CHORUS	Rockefeller University Press
Clarivate / Web of Science	SAGE Publications
Copernicus GmBH	Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information
Curtin University / Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative (COKI)	Silverchair / ScholarOne
De Gruyter Brill	Springer Science & Business
Digital Science / Figshare	TNQTech
Digital Science / Symplectic Elements	University of Laval
eLife	University of Chicago Press
Elsevier BV	University of Split
Enago

RORing ahead: using ROR in place of the Open Funder Registry

Rachael Lammey — Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0000

A few months ago we announced our plan to deprecate our support for the Open Funder Registry in favour of using the ROR Registry to support both affiliation and funder use cases. The feedback we’ve had from the community has been positive and supports our members, service providers and metadata users who are already starting to move in this direction.

We wanted to provide an update on work that’s underway to make this transition happen, and how you can get involved in working together with us on this.

Overall, we are building more comprehensive support for ROR into Crossref’s services. Some of this work is specifically to support using ROR to identify funding organisations in place of funder registry IDs. We have a number of parallel, complementary projects underway to support different elements of this work:

We are evolving our metadata schema so that we can collect ROR IDs in places where we currently support the collection of Funder IDs.
We are analysing the coverage of Funder ID to ROR ID mappings and testing the way we expose them in our APIs.
We are developing new matching strategies to match text strings to ROR IDs.

1. Schema updates

Everything flows from being able to get ROR IDs into the Crossref metadata!

We are evolving our metadata schema so that we can collect ROR IDs in places where we already support the collection of Funder IDs – for instance, in the funding section of the metadata for works and in the funder section for grants.

We’re working with members and service providers so that they can try sending us this data via a pipeline our Labs team has built to test schema updates before they go live. We are actively recruiting members to help us test our new pipeline by providing sample XML for registration. Planned metadata inputs and outputs are detailed in Including ROR as a funder identifier in your metadata (metadata prototyping instructions), we’d encourage you to provide feedback on these in the document, ideally in the next two weeks. We’re aiming to release an updated schema that supports these changes in Q1 2024.

2. Modelling ROR ID/Funder ID mappings in our metadata model

We have integrated the ROR registry into our evolving metadata model, and we have started work to integrate the Funder Registry. The aim is to create more flexibility in how Crossref’s metadata can be supplemented and queried, and give more clarity as to which party asserted or created a metadata element.

We’re working on an early iteration of how the model handles ROR IDs, funder IDs and their equivalencies. Once we have something to share, we’ll welcome community feedback on this approach and on the metadata model in general.

3. Developing new matching strategies to match text strings to ROR IDs

Ideally, everyone would always use persistent identifiers to exchange information about contributor and awardee affiliations, organisations related to works, as well as funders supporting the research. In practice, this information is often exchanged as data without identifiers, such as affiliation strings (e.g. “University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA”), funder names, or even funding acknowledgements (e.g. “Funding and support generously provided by the Ford Foundation”). In such situations, a good metadata matching strategy can help map these to persistent identifiers.

Currently, we are focused on developing reliable strategies for matching affiliation strings to ROR IDs. In the future, we will adapt the strategies to support funder names and funding acknowledgements as well. All the strategies will be rigorously evaluated using real-life data. We will make the strategies, as well as the evaluation datasets and evaluation results, publicly available for anyone to use. If you are interested in collaborating on the development or the evaluation of the matching strategies, please get in touch!

In the future, we might also apply some of the new matching strategies at Crossref, to the metadata our members send us. This would allow us to insert matched identifiers to the metadata to better connect organisations with other items in the scholarly record. We already have a process that matches the names of funders supporting research against the Funder Registry and enriches the metadata with matched Funder Registry IDs. Developing and evaluating reliable matching strategies will allow us to modify this process to use ROR IDs instead, and extend it to support other use cases, such as contributor affiliations.

What will the transition mean for you?

We do recommend that you begin looking at what it will take to integrate ROR into your systems and workflows for identifying funders. Talk to your service providers about this to ready them for this change. To reiterate the point from the earlier post, in the short term, and even in the medium term, Funder IDs aren’t going away and the Funder IDs will continue to resolve – they are persistent, after all. Eventually, however, the Funder Registry will cease to be updated, so any new funders will only be registrable in Crossref metadata with ROR IDs. Legacy Funder IDs and their mapping to ROR IDs will be maintained, so if Crossref members submit a legacy Funder ID, it will get mapped to a ROR ID automatically. Note, too, that Crossref is committed to maintaining the current funder API endpoints until ROR IDs become the predominant identifier for newly registered content. We also know that there are questions that we’ll want to tackle with the community as we all make progress, some we know and some we don’t know. With that in mind:

Tell us what you need!

We want to hear from you! We have set up several channels of communication meant to ensure that you can tell both ROR and Crossref what will make this transition easier for you and that you can get answers to your questions.

First, we are conducting a series of Open Funder Registry user interviews designed to deepen our understanding of where Funder IDs are being used in workflows and systems. Write community@ror.org if you’d like to participate in these interviews to show and tell us how you’re using Funder IDs.

Second, in 2024, we will be running a follow-up to the funding data workshop we ran in June 2023. Please get in touch if your organisation would be interested in participating in the discussion.

Open Funder Registry to transition into Research Organization Registry (ROR)

Amanda French — Thu, 07 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0000

There is some overlap between the Open Funder Registry and the Research Organization Registry (ROR), and funders and publishers have been asking us whether they should use Open Funder Registry IDs or ROR IDs to identify funders when they appear in both registries. We aim to merge the two registries over time. We will ensure Crossref members can use ROR to simplify persistent identifier integrations, to register better metadata, and to help connect research outputs to research funders.

Just yesterday, we published a summary of a recent workshop between funders and publishers on funding metadata workflows that we convened with the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and Sesame Open Science. As the report notes, “open funding metadata is arguably the next big thing” [in Open Science]. That being the case, we think this is the ideal time to strengthen our support of open funding metadata by beginning the transition to ROR.

Comparing the features of ROR and the Open Funder Registry

Let’s look at some of the similarities and differences between the two registries, including their history, features, scope, and usage, since there are important nuances and distinctions that are helpful to understand.

Overview

ROR	Open Funder Registry
Launched in 2019	Launched in 2013
Primary use case is contributor affiliation	Primary use case is funding acknowledgement
105k+ records	35k+ records
CC0 data	CC0 data
REST API	REST API
Free to use	Free to use
Entire registry downloadable as JSON and CSV	Entire registry downloadable as RDF; funder names and IDs downloadable as CSV
Records contain mappings to other IDs	Records do not contain mappings to other IDs
few organisation relationships and hierarchy	multiple organisation relationships and hierarchy
organisation level with no funding programs/schemes	organisation level with some funding programs/schemes
8 organisation types	2 funder types, 8 funder subtypes
Open source code and multiple open-source tools available	Open source code
Web-based registry search	Web-based search for works in Crossref associated with each Open Funder Registry ID
Web-based landing pages for each ROR record	JSON landing pages for each Open Funder Registry record
Updated monthly	Updated bimonthly
Public curation process	Private curation process
Anyone can request changes and additions	Anyone can request changes and additions
Stable financial support (Crossref, DataCite, CDL)	Stable financial support (Crossref, Elsevier)
Beginning to be supported in funding and publishing workflows	Well supported in most funding and publishing workflows
Currently used by 260+ Crossref members ¹	Currently used by 2100+ Crossref members ²

History

The Open Funder Registry was launched as FundRef over a decade ago to enable the community to cite research funding and support and assert it within the scholarly record, acknowledging the organisations granting their support. Elsevier generously donated the seed data for the Open Funder Registry and has managed its curation for the last ten years, while we have maintained the technical operations and promoted community adoption of the Open Funder Registry.

The Research Organization Registry (ROR) was introduced in 2019 by the California Digital Library, DataCite, and Crossref to enable the community to cite contributor affiliations and assert them within the scholarly record, acknowledging the organisations that housed or performed the research. Digital Science generously donated the seed data for the Research Organization Registry from its Global Research Identifier Database (GRID) initiative, and Crossref, DataCite, and the California Digital Library have contributed labour and resources to turn ROR into a mature, independent, freely available service.

Scope

One key difference between the registries is that ROR has always included funding organisations, and ROR records have always included mappings to Funder IDs where available, while the reverse is not true: the Open Funder Registry includes only funding organisations, not other kinds of organisations, and Open Funder Registry records do not currently include mappings to ROR IDs or other identifiers. It therefore makes sense to expand our initial contributor affiliation use case for ROR to include the identification of organisations that fund and support research.

Usage

More Crossref members use Funder IDs than use ROR IDs, to be sure. You can see from the table above that the number of Crossref members using Funder IDs in Crossref records is higher by almost a factor of 10 than the number of Crossref members using ROR IDs in Crossref records. But note too that the current rate of adoption is far higher for ROR than it is for the Open Funder Registry. Since January of 2022, we’ve seen a gratifying number of publishers and service providers beginning to use ROR identifiers for contributor affiliations in Crossref. In the last year, the number of Crossref members depositing ROR IDs has increased by 356%, while the number depositing Funder IDs has increased only by 12%. As evidenced by its ballooning API traffic, too, with more than 20 million requests last month,³ ROR is clearly being used by many scholarly research systems for many purposes. The more systems that use an identifier, the more valuable that identifier becomes as a vehicle for exchanging information.

ROR’s primary use case is to identify contributor affiliations and is already being used by funders. Nineteen funding organisations are depositing ROR IDs in their grant records with Crossref to denote principal investigator affiliations,⁴ and, following a meeting of the our Funder Advisory Group last month, all eighty funder members are primed to start using ROR IDs to identify themselves in grant records.

Tools and services

Both the Open Funder Registry and ROR have open data and open source code, but we think that our suite of free and open source utilities for ROR gives it an advantage. We know that publishers and their service providers have ongoing challenges in collecting and matching funding information from authors and in validating Funder IDs. With our extensive ROR toolkit, publishers and their technology providers who adopt ROR will be in a better position to improve the accuracy of funding acknowledgements in metadata, which can in turn enable the development of reliable analytics, tools, and services for funders, regulators, research facilities, and the public.

Crossref has built tools based on OpenRefine for both the Open Funder Registry and ROR: the Open Funder Registry Reconciliation Service and the ROR Reconciler are both useful ways to clean messy data. ROR, however, also offers a much-used API endpoint that helps match organisation names to ROR IDs, and several third parties have also developed and shared open source matching tools and services for ROR. Crossref is also collaborating on new strategies for affiliation matching that will improve connections for funding acknowledgements.

Community engagement models

The Open Funder Registry has been curated for over a decade through time and expertise generously donated by Elsevier and is community-governed by Crossref and it’s membership and board. ROR offers more transparent community involvement and is jointly governed by Crossref, DataCite, and the California Digital Library. ROR is openly curated and is aided by a global Curation Advisory Board of volunteers.

What will this mean for you?

The many organisations whose tools, services, and workflows have been architected to use Open Funder Registry (OFR) IDs will find this transition a challenge, and we don’t want to make light of that issue. Over the last ten years, we have encouraged the community to adopt Funder IDs, and the community has demonstrably recognized the benefits of doing so. Publishers have put a great deal of time, thought, and effort into collecting funder data and including it in Crossref metadata, and they have built internal reports and workflows around the Open Funder Registry. Crossref is committed to making the transition from the Open Funder Registry to the Research Organization Registry as simple as possible for the community.

If you are not already using the Open Funder Registry and are planning to begin standardizing funding data, we recommend that you use ROR to identify funders. If you are currently using the Open Funder Registry in your systems and workflows, don’t worry! In the medium term, Open Funder Registry IDs aren’t going away. Eventually, however, the Open Funder Registry may cease to be updated. Funder IDs and their mapping to ROR IDs will be maintained, so if Crossref members submit a Funder ID, it will get mapped to a ROR ID automatically. Note, too, that Crossref is committed to maintaining the current funder API endpoints.

In short, if you are already using Funder IDs, you can and should continue to do so. However, we do recommend that you begin looking at what it will take to integrate ROR into your systems and workflows for identifying funders as well as affiliations.

We face challenges in this transition, too. Of these, we think the largest will be (1) completing the reconciliation work involved in mapping Funder IDs to ROR IDs, and (2) updating Crossref’s schemas, APIs, and deposit tools to support ROR IDs in many the ways we currently support Funder IDs. We’ll discuss both of these challenges in future blog posts.

Tell us what you need?

We want to hear from you. You can use our Community Forum talk to us about the Crossref Open Funder Registry or contact ROR staff at Crossref via our request form. You can attend online Crossref events, including ROR-specific webinars to get updates from us and ask us your questions.

One of the major messages we’re already hearing from funders and publishers is expressed in yesterday’s post on open funding metadata: “While many concluded that there was still a long way to go to solve the many technical challenges related to funding metadata, attendees were unanimous on its importance.” We look forward to beginning this important work together.

How I think about ROR as infrastructure

Amanda French — Fri, 08 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0000

The other day I was out and about and got into a conversation with someone who asked me about my doctoral work in English literature. I’ve had the same conversation many times: I tell someone (only if they ask!) that my dissertation was a history of the villanelle, and then they cheerfully admit that they don’t know what a villanelle is, and then I ask them if they’re familiar with Dylan Thomas’s poem “Do not go gentle into that good night.” So far, everyone has heard of it – it’s a very well-known poem indeed. I then explain that “Do not go gentle into that good night” is a villanelle, and that a villanelle is a poetic form something like a sonnet. So far, everyone also knows what a sonnet is, which is why I use that as a comparison, even though a villanelle isn’t all that much like a sonnet, in my opinion. They’re both poetic forms, however, with a particular standard number of lines and a particular standard rhyme scheme, so in that sense they certainly are alike.

Oddly enough, I think my early background in the study of poetic form is very much of a piece with my new role here at Crossref as Technical Community Manager for ROR, the Research Organization Registry. Both poetic form and metadata are invisible to most people, but both are valuable infrastructure. Both poetic form and metadata involve generally-accepted practices and standards that differ between different groups of people and change over time. Both writing formal poetry and creating rich metadata can seem burdensome and rigid to some people, but to my mind, both are generative. A solid underlying foundation allows for all kinds of creativity to flourish on the surface.

That might be part of why as soon as I heard about ROR I understood its tremendous potential. As someone who’s worked in digital humanities and scholarly communication for over fifteen years, I’ve long appreciated the value of clean, standard, comprehensive metadata in general. For instance, I explained the origin and value of the Dublin Core metadata standard to many a history scholar in the Omeka workshops I often taught at THATCamp. Later, while overseeing the institutional repository at Virginia Tech University Libraries, I learned even more about both the importance and the difficulty of creating, acquiring, and providing good metadata. When the pandemic began in 2020, I learned more than I ever wanted to know about messy data as Community Lead for The COVID Tracking Project at The Atlantic.

Data and metadata are, let’s admit it, very hard to keep clean and consistent as they travel through multiple systems, and that’s why it’s important to regularize as much as we can through automatic means such as APIs that use agreed-upon standards. Scholarship is a network of networks, and common identifiers like DOIs and ORCIDs enable the interchange of information in those networks about scholarly outputs and scholars, and thus they enable scholarship itself. What could be more important than that?

But the organisations that employ, fund, and publish scholarly researchers have had a hard time keeping track of everything “their” researchers have given to the world. That’s the problem that ROR, “a community-led registry of open, sustainable, usable, and unique identifiers for every research organisation in the world,” can help solve. In an ideal world, universities might use ROR IDs to track the research their faculty have produced, certainly, but they might also discover which universities their faculty’s co-authors most often come from. Funders might use ROR IDs to identify the research outputs that have benefited from their funds, certainly, but they might also analyze whether they are funding enough researchers from institutions in rural areas. Publishers might use ROR IDs to offer affiliation searching in their own public interfaces, certainly, but they might also create internal reports on compliance with institution-level transformative Open Access agreements. Once something like ROR is widely adopted, the vision of the Research Nexus becomes closer to reality: “A rich and reusable open network of relationships connecting research organisations, people, things, and actions; a scholarly record that the global community can build on forever, for the benefit of society.” ROR is all about the “organisations” part of that alluring vision.

If you’re curious about ROR and want to learn more (hey, that rhymes!), you might want to watch the highly informative presentation from September 2021 “Working with ROR as a Crossref Member”, in which you’ll learn several interesting things, including the following:

ROR itself is not an organisation, but an initiative supported jointly by Crossref, DataCite, and the California Digital Library;
Crossref members cited institutional affiliation identifiers as one of their top priorities in 2019, second only to abstracts;
The specifics of how one recent ROR integrator, the open access journal publisher Hindawi, used the ROR API to create a typeahead widget in its manuscript submission system that replaces user-supplied free text with a standard institution name and a ROR ID behind the scenes, helping them to generate useful internal reports about institutional payments; and
Crossref supports the submission of ROR IDs in its XML content registration process and makes ROR IDs available in its API.

I’m also enthusiastically inviting you to get in touch with me if you’d like to learn more about ROR or if you’d like to tell me about your previous experience with ROR. And if you don’t get in touch with me, please be aware that I might well reach out to you – I’m eager to hear what you hope for from ROR, but also what you’re skeptical about. For, after all, I learn by going where I have to go – don’t we all?

Announcing the ROR Sustaining Supporters program

Ed Pentz — Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0000

In collaboration with California Digital Library and DataCite, Crossref guides the operations of the Research Organization Registry (ROR). ROR is community-driven and has an independent sustainability plan involving grants, donations, and in-kind support from our staff.

ROR is a vital component of the Research Nexus, our vision of a fully connected open research ecosystem. It helps people identify, connect, and analyze the affiliations of those contributing to, producing, and publishing all kinds of research objects. Crossref added support for ROR to its schema and REST API in 2021 and we are asking Crossref members to use ROR IDs for author affiliations in the metadata they deposit with Crossref. But this post is about how the Crossref community can support ROR in another way.

All three lead organisations—as well as the ROR initiative—have publicly committed to the POSI Principles and we know that our diverse and global community is increasingly interested in showing its support for open scholarly infrastructure too. Now there’s an opportunity to show that support; the following blog by Maria Gould, cross-posted from the ROR blog, explains how.

ROR begins a new round of community fundraising

Since ROR launched in 2019, we have been charting a path to sustainability that leverages our broad community network and diversifies our funding sources. ROR is currently funded through a combination of in-kind support from its three operating organisations, project-based grant funds, and financial contributions from community members.

While ROR aims to minimize overhead and contain costs, it still requires resources to build and maintain the registry’s infrastructure, especially as adoption continues to grow. ROR has been working to establish independent revenue streams that complement ROR’s in-kind support, avoid dependence on grant funds, and ensure the registry data remains openly available.

This year, ROR is initiating a new round of community fundraising. Building on the community fundraising campaign we ran during 2019-2021, we are renewing a call for organisations to commit to supporting ROR financially. We are launching a Sustaining Supporters program that opens up new ways for organisations to participate in the collective funding of ROR.

ROR Sustaining Supporters program

With the Sustaining Supporters program, organisations are encouraged to support ROR’s operating expenses on a recurring annual basis. Any organisation that signs up to support ROR through the end of 2022 will be recognized as a Founding Supporter and receive a supporter badge that can be displayed on their website.

We want to make the process of contributing to ROR as easy as possible. To ensure this is the case, organisations can support ROR at any amount that works for their budget and capacity. Also, to simplify the invoicing process, organisations that are already members of Crossref or DataCite can choose to receive an invoice directly from Crossref and DataCite for their ROR contributions. However, if organisations prefer, they can also be invoiced directly from ROR.

Why support ROR

ROR aims to be an example of the power and potential of community-funded open infrastructure. ROR is committed to providing open, stakeholder-governed infrastructure for research organisation identifiers and associated metadata. Implementation of ROR IDs in scholarly infrastructure and metadata enables more efficient discovery and tracking of research outputs across institutions and funding bodies.

The Sustaining Supporters program is the next step in ROR’s sustainability journey. ROR is continuing to explore future potential paid service tiers designed for those organisations and companies that rely heavily on our infrastructure, which would complement the supporters program. However, rest assured that any paid services will not impact the availability of ROR data or our commitment to supporting our community, in line with our commitment to the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI).

We’ve all seen key infrastructure components disappear, be enclosed, or get acquired. We are also realistic about how much effort and cost is involved in sustaining key components of open infrastructure that the scholarly community depends on. And we are committed to doing this right. That means not just sustaining core infrastructures, but investing in them so that they can evolve alongside community needs.

ROR is a free resource for the research community. However, this shared infrastructure does require a collective funding approach that can sustain it as a common good.

Join us!

This is an exciting moment to be part of ROR’s growth. Let’s fund open infrastructure together!

If your organisation is interested in supporting ROR and helping to fund open, community-led infrastructure, sign up here.

A ROR-some update to our API

Rachael Lammey — Wed, 19 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0000

Earlier this year, Ginny posted an exciting update on Crossref’s progress with adopting ROR, the Research Organization Registry for affiliations, announcing that we’d started the collection of ROR identifiers in our metadata input schema. 🦁

The capacity to accept ROR IDs to help reliably identify institutions is really important but the real value comes from their open availability alongside the other metadata registered with us, such as for publications like journal articles, book chapters, preprints, and for other objects such as grants. So today’s news is that ROR IDs are now connected in Crossref metadata and openly available via our APIs. 🎉

This means ROR can be used by and within all the tools services that integrate with Crossref APIs to analyse, search, recommend, or evaluate research. It’s an important element of the Research Nexus, our vision of a fully connected open research ecosystem, and helps identify, share, and link the affiliations of those producing and publishing different types of research or receiving grants.

Now that this metadata is available, it helps confer the downstream benefits of ROR for different (and interconnected) groups:

It makes it easier for institutions to find and measure their research output by the articles their researchers have published, or perhaps make it easier to track the grants they’ve received.
Funders need to be able to discover and track the research and researchers they have supported.
Academic librarians need to easily find all of the publications associated with their campus.
Journals need to know where authors are affiliated so they can determine eligibility for institutionally sponsored publishing agreements.
Editors can use more accurate information on author and reviewer institutions during the peer review process, which can help avoid potential conflicts of interest.

Those are just a handful of use cases, which is why disseminating ROR affiliation identifiers via our APIs is so important; it lets others choose to do what they need to with the information, without restriction.

The story so far

A growing number of our members have started to include ROR in the metadata they register with us, so we’re excited to be able to see this via simple API queries.

At the time of writing we can see nearly 4,000 RORs being registered by these 21 members (we’ve removed test accounts). Note that many of these are being baked into metadata being registered for grant records, also recently released and now findable through the REST API:

"Wellcome": 2821,
"Natural Resources Canada/CMSS/Information Management": 277,
"University of Szeged": 139,
"RTI Press": 104,
"American Cancer Society": 103,
"University of Missouri Libraries": 77,
"Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics": 52,
"Boise State University, Albertsons Library": 52,
"Australian Research Data Commons (ARDC)": 52,
"The Neurofibromatosis Therapeutic Acceleration Program": 49,
"Boise State University": 12,
"The ALS Association": 11,
"Children's Tumor Foundation": 9,
"Episteme Health Inc": 3,
"The University of the Witwatersrand": 2,
"Office of Scientific and Technical Information": 2,
"AGH University of Science and Technology Press": 2,
"York University Libraries": 1,
"SZTEPress": 1,
"Masaryk University Press": 1,
"Institut für Germanistik der Universität Szeged": 1,

Our grants schema accommodated ROR first, so it’s the funder members and grant records that dominate the adoption of ROR… so far! But there are a few articles and reports there too already. These record types include ROR in their records:

"Grant": 3047,
"Report": 382,
"Dissertation": 164,
"Journal Article": 140,
"Conference Paper": 22,
"Posted Content": 12,
"Dataset": 7,
"Monograph": 6,
"Book": 3,
"Chapter": 2,
"Proceedings Series": 1,
"Peer Review": 1,
"Journal Issue": 1,
"Book Set": 1,
"Book Series": 1

We can currently see 205 different ROR IDs in Crossref metadata, with the most frequently provided ROR ID being: https://ror.org/02jx3x895, or University College London as it’s also known as.

If you’re a Crossref member keen to assert affiliation identification in your content, our recent webinar, Working with ROR as a Crossref member: what you need to know, covers all the detail.

Interested in using the information? Dig into our REST API documentation and into the API itself, use the polite pool if you can (i.e. identify yourself). There’s also a wealth of information on the ROR support site or being shared among integrators in the growing ROR community.

Join us in doing more with ROR!

Some rip-RORing news for affiliation metadata

Ginny Hendricks — Mon, 26 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0000

We’ve just added to our input schema the ability to include affiliation information using ROR identifiers. Members who register content using XML can now include ROR IDs, and we’ll add the capability to our manual content registration form, participation reports, and metadata retrieval APIs in the near future. And we are inviting members to a Crossref/ROR webinar on 29th September at 3pm UTC.

The background

We’ve been working on the Research Organization Registry (ROR) as a community initiative for the last few years. Along with the California Digital Library and DataCite, our staff has been involved in setting the strategy, planning governance and sustainability, developing technical infrastructure, hiring/loaning staff, and engaging with people in person and online. In our view, it’s the best current model of a collaborative initiative between like-minded open scholarly infrastructure (OSI) organisations.

Last year, Project Manager Maria Gould described the case for publishers adopting ROR and ROR was ranked the number one priority at our last in-person annual meeting. Now it’s time that Crossref’s services themselves took up the baton to meet the growing demand.

The inclusion of ROR in the Crossref metadata will help everyone in the scholarly ecosystem make critical connections more easily. For example, research institutions need to monitor and measure their output by the articles and other resources their researchers have produced. Journals need to know with which institutions authors are affiliated to determine eligibility for institutionally sponsored publishing agreements. Funders need to be able to discover and track the research and researchers they have supported. Academic librarians need to easily find all of the publications associated with their campus.

Earlier this month, GRID and ROR announced that after working together to seed the community-run Research Organization Registry, GRID would be retiring from public service and handing the proverbial torch over to ROR as the scholarly community’s reliable universal open identifier for affiliations. That means that our members who have been using GRID now need to consider their move to ROR and think about how they can add ROR IDs into the metadata that they manage and share through Crossref.

The plan

We’ve been able to include ROR IDs for our grant metadata schema as affiliation information for two years, since July 2019. And the Australia Research Data Commons (ARDC) was the first member to add ROR IDs to the Crossref system in 2020. In early July, we completed the work to accept ROR IDs for affiliation assertions for all other types of records with an affiliation or institution element, such as journal articles, book chapters, preprints, datasets, dissertations, and many more.

Next, we will commence the plans to support ROR in our other tools and services, such as Participation Reports. We’ll work on alignment with the Open Funder Registry and share our plans to collect the information via the new user interface we’re developing for registering and managing metadata. Open Journal Systems (OJS) already has a ROR Plugin, developed by the German National Library of Science and Technology (TIB). This supports the collection of ROR IDs and future releases of this plugin and the OJS DOI plugin will allow including ROR IDs in the metadata sent to Crossref, to support thousands of our members to share ROR IDs via their Crossref metadata. We also aim to add ROR to our metadata retrieval options, including the REST API, which recently saw the start of an unblocking with our move to a more robust technical foundation.

The call for participation

Many Crossref publishers, funders, and service providers are already planning to integrate ROR with their systems, map their affiliation data to ROR, and include ROR in Crossref metadata. In addition to publishers and funders, libraries, repositories, and other stakeholders are developing support for ROR. For example, the Plan S Journal Checker tool uses ROR IDs to let people check whether a particular journal is compliant with an author’s funder and institutional open access policies. In addition, the ROR website shows a growing list of active and in-progress ROR integrations.

Crossref members registering research grants via Altum’s ProposalCentral system can already add ROR IDs. Now those registering articles, books, preprints, datasets, dissertations, and other research objects, can start including much clearer and all-important affiliation metadata as part of their content registration going forward. As with all newly-introduced metadata elements, we recommend adding ROR IDs from now and ongoing, but planning a distinct project to backfill older records. We know that more than 80% of records have been updated and enriched at least once with additional and cleaner metadata, so as members do this routinely, they can include ROR IDs alongside updating URLs, license or funding information, and other metadata.

For information on how ROR will be supported in the Crossref metadata, take a look at our latest schema release (version 5.3.0) or in this journal article example XML.

Join the discussion in our forum below and register for the Crossref/ROR webinar on September 29th at 3pm UTC to learn all you need to know about incorporating ROR into your Crossref metadata.

Publishers, are you ready to ROR?

Maria Gould — Tue, 25 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0000

If you manage a publishing system or workflow, you know how crucial—and how challenging!—it is to have clean, consistent, and comprehensive affiliation metadata. Author affiliations, and the ability to link them to publications and other scholarly outputs, are vital for numerous stakeholders across the research landscape. Institutions need to monitor and measure their research output by the articles their researchers have published. Funders need to be able to discover and track the research and researchers they have supported. Academic librarians need to easily find all of the publications associated with their campus. Journals need to know where authors are affiliated so they can determine eligibility for institutionally sponsored publishing agreements.

Until recently, an open, unambiguous, and persistent identifier for research organisation affiliations has been a missing layer of the scholarly ecosystem. DOIs could identify articles and datasets and other research outputs, and ORCID IDs could identify researchers, but no equivalent solution was available to identify institutions. With the launch of the Research Organization Registry (ROR) in 2019 (which Crossref has helped to develop), the landscape is changing. ROR IDs are an opportunity to make affiliation details easier for publishers to use and easier for those who rely on this data.

Affiliations are a key piece of Crossref metadata that has been missing, but will soon be supported in the Crossref metadata schema. This means that content registered with Crossref can be associated with a ROR IDs to enable better tracking and discovery of research and other publication outputs by institution.

What is ROR?

ROR is the Research Organization Registry––open, noncommercial, community-led infrastructure for research organisation identifiers. The registry currently includes globally unique persistent identifiers and associated metadata for more than 98,000 research organisations (as of August 2020).

ROR IDs are specifically designed to be implemented in any system that captures institutional affiliations and to enable connections (via persistent identifiers and networked research infrastructure) between research organisations, research outputs, and researchers.

ROR IDs are interoperable with those in other identifier registries, including GRID (which provided the seed data that ROR launched with), Crossref Funder Registry, ISNI, and Wikidata. ROR data is available under a CC0 waiver and can be accessed via a public API and data dump.

ROR is not the first organisation identifier to exist. But ROR is distinct because it is completely open, specifically focused on identifying affiliations, and collaboratively developed by, with, and for key stakeholders in scholarly communications. ROR is operated as a joint initiative by Crossref, DataCite, and California Digital Library, and was launched with seed data from GRID in collaboration with Digital Science. These organisations have invested resources into building an open registry of research organisation identifiers that can be embedded in scholarly infrastructure to effectively link research to organisations.

Why care about ROR IDs in Crossref metadata?

Ed Pentz, Crossref’s Executive Director, explains the key role ROR can play in enriching Crossref metadata:

“Over the years Crossref has expanded the metadata it collects (for example, ORCID IDs and license URLs) based on the changing needs of our members and the scholarly research community. A key type of metadata that is missing from Crossref is affiliations. We’ve had a lot of feedback from members that adding affiliations should be a priority. At Crossref LIVE19 in Amsterdam, ROR was ranked joint first place for Crossref by the 100 plus attendees at the meeting. For the last few years we’ve been diligently working on the initiative and are very happy that ROR is now coming to fruition.”

Crossref metadata does include some affiliations already. But this data is not comprehensive or consistent, and appears as free-text strings only (even if originally sourced from a list of institutions). A search for UC Berkeley, for instance, returns multiple variants of the university’s name:

University of California, Berkeley
University of California-Berkeley
University of California Berkeley
UC Berkeley
And likely more…

While it isn’t too difficult for a human to guess that “UC Berkeley,” “University of California, Berkeley,” and “University of California at Berkeley” are all referring to the same university, a machine interpreting this information wouldn’t necessarily make the same connections. If you are trying to easily find all of the publications associated with UC Berkeley, you would need to run and reconcile multiple searches at best, or miss data completely at worst. This is where an affiliation identifier comes in: a single, unambiguous, standardized identifier that will always stay the same (for UC Berkeley, that would be https://ror.org/01an7q238).

ROR IDs for affiliations can transform the usability of Crossref metadata. While it’s crucial to have IDs for affiliations, it’s equally important that the affiliation data can be easily used. The ROR dataset is CC0, so ROR IDs and associated affiliation data can be freely and openly used and reused without any restrictions.

What does this mean for publishers?

As the Crossref schema update is being cleared for takeoff, this is a good time for publishers and publishing service providers to be thinking about adopting ROR.

ROR IDs can be useful in publishing workflows in a variety of ways. They can easily be implemented into manuscript tracking systems to identify the affiliations of submitting authors and co-authors. This can be done via a simple institution lookup that connects to the ROR API. Authors choose their affiliation from a dropdown list populated from ROR; they do not have to provide a ROR ID or even know that a ROR ID is being collected.

Upon publication, ROR affiliation data can be included when content is registered with Crossref. ROR IDs are also supported in the JATS XML format that many publishers use. Crossref metadata can be searched and crawled, and the Crossref API will make ROR IDs available so affiliation data can be captured by tools and services and fed into downstream reporting and tracking systems.

Get ready to ROR!

ROR is already working with a number of publishers and service providers that are planning to integrate ROR in their systems, map their affiliation data to ROR IDs, and/or include ROR IDs in publication metadata.

For example: Rockefeller University Press has already added the collection of ROR IDs to their publication workflow. Upon submission, the author selects an institutional affiliation from a dropdown list of options that comes from ROR. Rockefeller University Press also relies on this affiliation data for billing and licensing purposes to coordinate Gold Open Access publishing agreements.

In addition to publishers, libraries and repositories and other stakeholders are building in support for ROR. You can also see the list of active and in-progress ROR integrations here.

We know decisions about identifier adoption aren’t easy or immediate, so get in touch with ROR if you have questions or want to be more involved in the project. ROR holds regular community meetings and webinars and supports several community working groups for those interested in implementing ROR IDs and working with ROR data. This is a community-driven effort so we want to hear from you!

ROR announces the first Org ID prototype

Maria Gould — Sun, 10 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0000

What has hundreds of heads, 91,000 affiliations, and roars like a lion? If you guessed the Research Organization Registry community, you’d be absolutely right!

Last month was a big and busy one for the ROR project team: we released a working API and search interface for the registry, we held our first ROR community meeting, and we showcased the initial prototypes at PIDapalooza in Dublin.

We’re energized by the positive reception and response we’ve received and we wanted to take a moment to share information with the community. Here are the links to our latest work, a recap of everything that happened in Dublin, some of the next steps for the project, and how the community can continue to be involved.

🎉 Ta da! The first ROR prototype

The Research Organization Registry (ROR) is finally here! We’re thrilled to officially announce the launch of our ROR MVR (minimum viable registry). The MVR consists of the following components, which are ready for anyone to use right now.

ROR IDs: Starting with seed data from GRID, ROR has begun assigning unique identifiers to approximately 91,000 organisations in its registry. ROR IDs include a random, unique, and opaque 9-character string and are expressed as URLs that resolve to the organisation’s record. For instance, here is the ROR ID for California Digital Library: https://ror.org/03yrm5c26
Search: We also built a search interface to look up organisations in the registry: https://ror.org/search.

ROR records: ROR IDs are stored with additional metadata about the organisation, such as alternate names/abbreviations, external URLs (e.g., an organisation’s official website), and other identifiers, such as Wikidata, ISNI, and the Open Funder Registry. This metadata will allow ROR to be interoperable with other identifiers and across different systems. The current schema is based on GRID’s dataset and we plan to incorporate other metadata fields over time and according to community needs.

API: The ROR API is now public. You can access the JSON files at https://api.ror.org/organisations.
OpenRefine reconciler: We’ve released an OpenRefine reconciler that can map your internal identifiers to ROR identifiers: https://github.com/ror-community/ror-reconciler.
Documentation: We have begun storing documentation on Github and will be adding more as we go along. Please feel free to follow and contribute: https://github.com/ror-community.

Community meeting recap

On January 22, 60+ representatives from across the research and publishing community gathered in Dublin to see what the ROR project team has been up to, demo the first prototypes in action, and discuss where we want to go next - and, of course, to practice ROR-ing together.

In the second half of the meeting, attendees split into discussion groups to identify specific aspirations for ROR and brainstorm concrete actions needed to achieve these goals, focusing on the main use case of exposing and capturing all research outputs of a given institution. The proposed ideas covered a spectrum of possibilities for ROR, highlighting the following themes:

ROR as seamlessly-integrated and sometimes invisible infrastructure

Integration between and within existing systems (and in new ones!)
Auto-detection of ROR IDs for example in manuscript tracking and funding application platforms
As such, researchers don’t ever have to be responsible for knowing what a ROR is and using it appropriately - the systems they use will do this for them.

ROR as a critical piece of funder workflows and infrastructure

Demonstrate to funders how ROR can help them analyze impact of research they fund
Conduct outreach with key international funders, especially those interested in open infrastructure
Make funders aware of ROR and encourage them to adopt and mandate use of ROR IDs - involve funders at the beginning to collaborate on technology
Integrate ROR with existing systems and identifiers already in use by funders and other stakeholders

ROR as a trusted registry, collaborative partner, and responsible steward

Culturally sensitive, inclusive, and respectful of what countries are already doing with regard to organisational identifiers, partnering with national bodies working on this and mapping ROR IDs to locally used identifiers.
Involve the institutions listed in the registry early on as well as CRIS systems
Interoperability with existing communities and governance bodies
Workflows to support trust and responsible management of organisational metadata, with policies and procedures for long-term curation and maintenance of records

What we’re hearing

Now that the ROR MVR is here, we’re hearing some really good questions about the data we’re capturing, how it can be used, and how we’ll be maintaining the registry going forward. We wanted to take a moment to respond to some of these questions.

What is the criteria for being listed in ROR? What is a “research organisation”?

We define the notion of “research organisation” quite broadly as any organisation that conducts, produces, manages, or touches research. This is in line with ROR’s stated scope, which is to address the affiliation use case and be able to identify which organisations are associated with which research outputs. We use “affiliation” to describe any formal relationship between a researcher and an organisation associated with researchers, including but not limited to their employer, educator, funder, or scholarly society.

Will ROR map organisational hierarchies?

No - ROR is focused on being a top-level registry of organisations so we can address the fundamental affiliation use case, and provide a critical source of metadata that can interoperate with other institutional identifiers.

ROR IDs are cool - what can I do with them?

Now that we have built our MVR, we will be working to incorporate ROR IDs into relevant pieces of the scholarly communication infrastructure. If you are a publisher, funder, metadata provider, research office, or anyone else interested in capturing affiliations, please get in touch with us to discuss how we might coordinate. If you are a developer, you are welcome to start playing around with the API: https://api.ror.org/organisations.

There’s an error in my organisation’s ROR record — can you fix it?

For the time being, please email info@ror.org to request an update to an existing record in ROR or request that a new record be added. We will formalize our data management policies and procedures in the next stage of the project.

What is ROR’s relationship to other organisational identifiers?

For ROR to be useful, it needs to augment the current offerings in a way that is open, trusted, complementary, and collaborative, and not intentionally competitive. We are committed to providing a service that the community finds helpful and not duplicative, and enables as many connections as possible between organisation records across systems.

I have my own dataset of institutional affiliations — can I give it to ROR?

We are always happy to hear about other efforts to capture affiliation data. Please get in touch with us to discuss how we might coordinate.

Can ROR support multiple languages and character sets?

GRID already supports multiple languages and character sets, so by extension ROR will have this enabled as well. Here is one example: https://ror.org/01k4yrm29.

How will ROR handle curation, i.e., updating records if an organisation changes its name or ceases to exist?

The curation and long-term management of records will be a cornerstone of our efforts in 2019 and we hope to release a working set of policies and procedures soon.

What’s next for ROR

Now that we have our MVR, what happens next for ROR? We’re eager to sustain the momentum from January’s stakeholder meeting at the same time we know there are some longer-term plans to put in place, and so we’re looking at both some immediate tasks as well as bigger-picture questions.

Product development

We have a few to-do items on our list following the launch of the MVR to keep everything running smoothly while we develop a comprehensive long-term product roadmap.

Rewrite some of the code for both the API and the OpenRefine reconciler
Address a few bugs in our repos
Provide guidance for troubleshooting issues
Communicate our processes for users to request changes, report bugs, and suggest features

As a reminder, you can access the existing code in Github: https://github.com/ror-community

Policy development

We’ve been emphasizing here and in community conversations that our primary focus now turns to formulating policies and procedures to ensure the successful management of ROR data over the long term. This is something we can’t (and shouldn’t) do on our own — we want to work with community stakeholders to develop the right solutions and establish the right frameworks. We understand the urgency of firming up these policies, but we are also aware that something this important can take time to complete and is not something to rush into lightly.

Community development

To help guide the next stages of the project, we are putting out an open call for participation in the ROR community advisory group. Advisory group members will be involved in giving input on data management, testing out new features, giving feedback on the product roadmap, and discussing ideas for events and outreach. We plan to convene this advisory group through bimonthly calls and asynchronous communication channels through the end of the year. We hope you will consider joining us! Please email info@ror.org if you are interested.

For those who want to stay informed about the project but not necessarily be part of the advisory group, you have other options!

Sign up for our mailing list (via the footer at ror.org)
Join our community on Slack (www.tinyurl.com/ror-community),
Follow us on Twitter (@ResearchOrgs).

You can also always drop us a line at info@ror.org, and let us know if you’d ever like to set up a meeting or conference call to talk about the project in more detail.

Final thoughts

Community engagement has been vital to ROR’s beginnings and will likewise be critically important for the next steps that we take. As both a registry of identifiers and a community of stakeholders involved in building open scholarly infrastructure, ROR depends on guidance and involvement at multiple levels. Thank you for being part of the journey thus far, and for joining us on the road that lies ahead. 🦁

Org ID: a recap and a hint of things to come

John Chodacki — Thu, 02 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0000

Cross-posted on the blogs of University of California (UC3), ORCID, and DataCite: https://doi-org.pluma.sjfc.edu/10.5438/67sj-4y05.

Over the past couple of years, a group of organisations with a shared purpose—California Digital Library, Crossref, DataCite, and ORCID—invested our time and energy into launching the Org ID initiative, with the goal of defining requirements for an open, community-led organisation identifier registry. The goal of our initiative has been to offer a transparent, accessible process that builds a better system for all of our communities. As the working group chair, I wanted to provide an update on this initiative and let you know where our efforts are headed.

Community-led effort

First, I would like to summarize all of the work that has gone into this project, a truly community-driven initiative, over the last two years:

A series of collaborative workshops were held at the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) meeting in San Antonio TX (2016), the FORCE11 conference in Portland OR (2016), and at PIDapalooza in Reykjavik (2016).
Findings from these workshops were summarized in three documents, which we made openly available to the community for public comment:
organisation Identifier Project: A Way Forward (PDF)
organisation Identifier Provider Landscape (PDF)
Technical Considerations for an organisation Identifier Registry (PDF)
A Working Group worked throughout 2017 and voted to approve a set of recommendations and principles for ‘governance’ and ‘product’:
Governance Recommendations
Product Principles and Recommendations
We then put out a Request for Information that sought expressions of interest from organisations to be involved in implementing and running an organisation identifier registry.
There was a really good response to the RFI; reviewing the responses and thinking about next steps led to our most recent stakeholder meeting in Girona in January 2018, where ORCID, DataCite, and Crossref were tasked with drafting a proposal that meets the Working Group’s requirements for a community-led, organisational identifier registry.

Thank you

I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to this effort so far. We’ve been able to make good progress with the initiative because of the time and expertise many of you have volunteered. We have truly benefited from the support of the community, with representatives from Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; American Physical Society, California Digital Library, Cornell University, Crossref, DataCite, Digital Science, Editeur, Elsevier, Foundation for Earth Sciences, Hindawi, Jisc, ORCID, Ringgold, Springer Nature, The IP Registry, and U.S. Geological Survey involved throughout this initiative. And we couldn’t have done any of it without the help and guidance of our consultants, Helen Szigeti and Kristen Ratan.

The way forward

The recommendations from our initiative have been converted into a concrete plan for building a registry for research organisations. This plan will be posted in the coming weeks.

The initiative’s leadership group has already secured start-up resourcing and is getting ready to announce the launch plan—more details coming soon.

We hope that all stakeholders will continue to support the next phase of our work – look for announcements in the coming weeks about how to get involved.

As always, we welcome your feedback and involvement as this effort continues. Please contact me directly with any questions or comments at john.chodacki@ucop.edu. And thanks again for your help bringing an open organisation identifier registry to fruition!

References

Bilder, G., Brown, J., & Demeranville, T. (2016). Organisation identifiers: current provider survey. ORCID. https://doi-org.pluma.sjfc.edu/10.5438/4716

Cruse, P., Haak, L., & Pentz, E. (2016). organisation Identifier Project: A Way Forward. ORCID. https://doi-org.pluma.sjfc.edu/10.5438/2906

Fenner, M., Paglione, L., Demeranville, T., & Bilder, G. (2016). Technical Considerations for an organisation Identifier Registry. https://doi-org.pluma.sjfc.edu/10.5438/7885

Laurel, H., Bilder, G., Brown, C., Cruse, P., Devenport, T., Fenner, M., … Smith, A. (2017). ORG ID WG Product Principles and Recommendations. https://doi-org.pluma.sjfc.edu/10.23640/07243.5402047

Laurel, H., Pentz, E., Cruse, P., & Chodacki, J. (2017). organisation Identifier Project: Request for Information. https://doi-org.pluma.sjfc.edu/10.23640/07243.5458162

Pentz, E., Cruse, P., Laurel, H., & Warner, S. (2017). ORG ID WG Governance Principles and Recommendations. https://doi-org.pluma.sjfc.edu/10.23640/07243.5402002

The OI Project gets underway planning an open organisation identifier registry

Ed Pentz — Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0000

At the end of October 2016, Crossref, DataCite, and ORCID reported on collaboration in the area of organisation identifiers. We issued three papers for community comment and after input we subsequently announced the formation of The OI Project, along with a call for expressions of interest from people interested in serving on the working group.

We had a great response and are happy to report that the Working Group has now been established, and is already underway with work to develop a plan for an open, independent, not-for-profit, sustainable, organisation identifier registry.

There is information about the OI Project Working Group on the ORCID website including a list of the 17 working group members. They represent a broad range of scholarly communications stakeholders. Our scope of work includes three separate but interdependent areas:

Governance;
Registry Product Definition; and
Business Model & Funding.

The initial goal of the Working Group is to create a thorough and robust implementation plan by the end of 2017.

Please take a look at the website for more information and we’ll provide updates as things progress throughout the course of the year.

Please contact us with any questions.

ROR on Crossref

Insights from a roundtable on author affiliation metadata

Insights from presenters

Insights into challenges

Inherent data complexity

Author-related issues

Technical barriers

Publisher practices

Insights into solutions

Adopt collective approaches

Engage authors and institutions

Improve the tech

Encourage publisher best practices

Moving forward

References

Participating organizations

RORing ahead: using ROR in place of the Open Funder Registry

1. Schema updates

2. Modelling ROR ID/Funder ID mappings in our metadata model

3. Developing new matching strategies to match text strings to ROR IDs

What will the transition mean for you?

Tell us what you need!

Open Funder Registry to transition into Research Organization Registry (ROR)

Comparing the features of ROR and the Open Funder Registry

Overview

History

Scope

Usage

Tools and services

Community engagement models

What will this mean for you?

Tell us what you need?

How I think about ROR as infrastructure

Announcing the ROR Sustaining Supporters program

ROR begins a new round of community fundraising

ROR Sustaining Supporters program

Why support ROR

Join us!

A ROR-some update to our API

The story so far

Some rip-RORing news for affiliation metadata

The background

The plan

The call for participation

Publishers, are you ready to ROR?

What is ROR?

Why care about ROR IDs in Crossref metadata?

What does this mean for publishers?

Get ready to ROR!

ROR announces the first Org ID prototype

🎉 Ta da! The first ROR prototype

Community meeting recap

ROR as seamlessly-integrated and sometimes invisible infrastructure

ROR as a critical piece of funder workflows and infrastructure

ROR as a trusted registry, collaborative partner, and responsible steward

What we’re hearing

What is the criteria for being listed in ROR? What is a “research organisation”?

Will ROR map organisational hierarchies?

ROR IDs are cool - what can I do with them?

There’s an error in my organisation’s ROR record — can you fix it?

What is ROR’s relationship to other organisational identifiers?

I have my own dataset of institutional affiliations — can I give it to ROR?

Can ROR support multiple languages and character sets?

How will ROR handle curation, i.e., updating records if an organisation changes its name or ceases to exist?

What’s next for ROR

Product development

Policy development

Community development

Final thoughts

Org ID: a recap and a hint of things to come

Community-led effort

Thank you

The way forward

References

The OI Project gets underway planning an open organisation identifier registry