5 Questions With… Devin Soper



Devin Soper, Scholarly Communication Librarian, Florida State University

This is #7 in our series of get-acquainted posts featuring members of the ASERL Scholarly Communications community

Q1. Describe your current scholcomm position.

I have been working as a Scholarly Communications Librarian at FSU for almost three years. As you might expect for a garden-variety scholcomm position, my responsibilities span a number of different areas, including institutional repository management, OA policy implementation, open education initiatives, library publishing, copyright education, and research data management. Although juggling these hats can be tricky, I love the variety, and I’m very grateful to the leadership at FSU Libraries for giving me the freedom to focus on specific projects from time to time. Some highlights from the past few years include migrating our institutional repository from bepress Digital Commons to the open-source Islandora platform, passing and implementing an institutional OA policy, publishing our first book-length, edited volume, and, more recently, building a new OER program to support student success by reducing textbook costs and creating opportunities for open, learner-centered pedagogy. For more details on what I’ve been up to recently, check out my CV on github.


Q2. What attracted you to scholcomm work?

Back in 2012, my first professional library job was in the University of British Columbia’s (then) newly formed Scholarly Communication & Copyright Office (SCCO), which was created with a mandate to develop copyright services for the university, and particularly to promote copyright compliance following UBC’s exit from the Access Copyright interim tariff. In light of this mandate, most of my work at the SCCO involved providing education and resources around copyright and fair dealing (the Canadian equivalent to fair use) in teaching and research. Although I enjoyed this work, it regularly forced me to confront the restrictiveness of the “All Rights Reserved” copyright regime and, as a result, led me to become increasingly enamoured with the power of open licensing to promote equitable access to information and to provide the requisite reuse rights for myriad forms of scholarly and pedagogical innovation. Naturally, this experience eventually led me to seek out a more traditional scholcomm role where I would be empowered to focus specifically on advancing openness at my institution – and, thankfully, that’s exactly what I found at FSU!  


Q3. What is the most rewarding part of your job?

The most rewarding part of my job is connecting and collaborating with the many brilliant, innovative faculty, staff, and students at my institution. This is a rewarding endeavor in itself, but it also ties into my hopes for the growth of our scholcomm program at FSU (and the long-term success of library scholcomm initiatives, more generally). Although our program dates back to 2011, we are still a relatively small shop, and we’ve long recognized that our aspirations of shifting the default to open at our institution can only be realized through strategic collaboration with like-minded individuals on campus.

To illustrate what I mean here, allow me to refer briefly to Derek Sivers’ TED Talk, How to Start a Movement. In many ways, our scholcomm program is akin to the subject of Derek’s talk: namely, a “lone nut,” dancing alone at a festival, who attracts a few brave souls to join him, recognizes them as equals, and empowers them to invite their friends, until gradually a crowd forms and everyone on the fence feels compelled to join in. A strained analogy, perhaps, but the idea gives me hope and makes collaborating with the innovators on our campus all the more rewarding.

Q.4 If you had a magic wand and could change one thing in the scholcomm ecosystem, what would it be?

Like many other contributors to this blog series, my first choice would be changing the promotion and tenure process to incentivize faculty to make their work open. Perhaps the best example of this, for me, is the Liège model, where faculty are required to deposit the full text of their works in the institutional repository in order to have them considered for the purposes of internal research evaluation / P&T. If even a few U.S. institutions were able to implement similar policies, I think that belief in the value of institutional OA policies (and the feasibility of Green OA, more generally) would soar as a result.

To vary the conversation a bit, a close second for me would be increased collaboration around big deal cancellations. I’m thinking here about the nationwide cancellations and renegotiations that have taken place in the Netherlands, Germany, and Finland, for instance, where hundreds of universities have banded together to cancel (and later renegotiate) their big deal contracts with Elsevier on the grounds of unsustainable pricing practices, insufficient respect for authors’ rights, and reluctance (if not outright opposition) to advance the cause of open access. In following these developments, I’ve long wished that we could present a similarly united front on these issues here in the U.S., whether at the state, regional, or national level.

Q5. If you were NOT a scholcomm librarian, what would you be?

A musician, and specifically a trombonist in big brass band. A totally impractical answer, since I don’t have much in the way of musical talent or experience, but I dig the dream!


5 Questions With… Kathleen DeLaurenti

Kathleen DeLaurenti, Head Librarian, Johns Hopkins University Peabody Institute.

This is #6 in our series of get-acquainted posts featuring members of the ASERL Scholarly Communications community.

Q1. Describe your current scholcomm position.
My position is less obviously scholcomm these days. I just started a new position last fall as Head Librarian at the Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University. We’re a small staff, so I’m still taking the lead on ETDs; programming around issues like authors rights, copyright, and creative commons; as well as representing the institute in campus-wide scholcomm conversations. I also just finished my first year as the inaugural Open Access Editor of the Music Library Association where I’m currently developing a strategic vision for open access and publications of the association.

Q2. What attracted you to scholcomm work?
The early drafts of the DMCA in the late 90s posed a serious threat to internet radio. As a college student who relied on the internet to fuel my WFMU habit, I became really politically active around issues relating to copyright, music, and balance at the legislative level. While I didn’t go back to grad school until 2006, the Google Books case pretty immediately sucked me back into issues around social justice, access to culture and education, and advocacy work. In our institutions, we haven’t kept a balance between the publishing industry, the public’s interest in access to scholarship, and our promotion and tenure systems. Today, we are asking the public to fund something that they need to buy back access to, and it’s not surprising that culturally we’re seeing less support for higher education in the United States.

Q3. What is the most rewarding part of your job?
The most rewarding part of my job is empowering students and faculty to make informed decisions about their rights. Most scholars want to see their work in the world, but our academic systems don’t really provide them with opportunities to question and think about how this happens. Library scholcomm services make that space in the academy, and having a student or faculty member engage in the process to make sure they have agency in publishing their work will never get old.

Q.4 If you had a magic wand and could change one thing in the scholcomm ecosystem, what would it be?
I know others in this space have said it, but I would also want to take away the promotion and tenure carrots that remain a barrier to open access. As long as a publisher’s name serves as a proxy for quality of work in the evaluation process, it’s too difficult for faculty to break away and make decisions that they want to make with their work. I was recently reminded of this blog post by Philip Moriarty about this issue from a faculty perspective (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/03/14/addicted-to-the-brand-the-hypocrisy-of-a-publishing-academic/); this single change would have the greatest immediate impact on access to research.

Q5. If you were NOT a scholcomm librarian, what would you be?
Even though my title isn’t scholcomm, I think we’re all involved in this work today. But if I had to pick another profession, I’d be a dog trainer, hanging out with puppies all day :)

5 Questions With… Hillary Miller

_N2A1199_crop Hillary Miller, Scholarly Communications Outreach Librarian, Virginia Commonwealth University

This is #5 in our series of get-acquainted posts featuring members of the ASERL Scholarly Communications community.




Q1. Describe your current scholcomm position.

I’m the Scholarly Communications Outreach Librarian and a member of our libraries’ Scholarly Communications and Publishing Division. I help guide faculty and students on matters of copyright, open access, author rights, open educational resources, and research impact. I offer consultations and workshops, and I collaborate with library and university partners to build larger-scale outreach initiatives and educational programming. Some recent and upcoming examples include Science Speak (a collaborative university event on science communication), Copyright for Creators (a workshop series on copyright for artists and art scholars), and OpenCon Virginia (a regional satellite event of the main international OpenCon).

Q2. What attracted you to scholcomm work?

In graduate school, I worked in the library’s e-resources and serials management division, where I first experienced e-resource license negotiations and learned about copyright, license restrictions, and open access. This sparked my interest in the broader scholcomm ecosystem, and I was excited by how dynamic this area of work is. Although change and uncertainty can be a challenge, it’s something I welcome!

Q3. What is the most rewarding part of your job?

My favorite part of my job is how many different parts of the university it brings me into contact with, and how excited people get when they find out that the libraries are working in this area. In addition to working with faculty and students across all of our academic schools and departments, I get to work with amazing colleagues from units like our Office of Research, Division of Community Engagement, and Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence. And now with an emerging focus on open educational resources, I am building relationships with even more groups like the campus bookstore, Student Affairs, Academic Technologies, and more.

Q4. If you had a magic wand and could change one thing in the scholcomm ecosystem, what would it be?

I’d use the magic wand to create an instant culture change in the academic community, one that would give all stakeholders a strong sense of ownership over the scholcomm ecosystem and scholarship in general. I’d like to bring all stakeholders to the table with a commitment to building and sustaining community-owned infrastructure and a drive to experiment with new forms of dissemination (and recognize this through promotion and tenure processes) that would support greater research impact, particularly for communities outside of the academy.

Q5. If you were NOT a scholcomm librarian, what would you be?

Inside of libraries, I would probably go back to e-resources acquisitions. I truly love reading and negotiating contracts!

Outside of libraries, I would love to work for a grant giving foundation. My dream job is to be able to give money and resources to people who have good ideas and who are doing good work. Being a billionaire philanthropist would also let me do this, but that’s probably a lot less likely to happen

George Mason University’s OER Metafinder Search Tool: The Back Story

wallyg-gmu2Authored by Wally Grotophorst, Associate University Librarian for Digital Programs and Systems, George Mason University Libraries

This past summer I attended a meeting with the library’s Mason Publishing Group and representatives of the Provosts office, exploring what we could do to reduce the cost of textbooks and promote open educational resources across campus.  During the course of the meeting, we looked at several of the most popular OER content sites and batted around a few ideas for surfacing appropriate content for interested faculty–maybe lists by subject, maybe a LibGuide for OER content, and so on.

I wasn’t convinced an exhaustive list of OER sites would be enough. I left the meeting with the image of a faculty member—excited by idea of OERs–feeling the enthusiasm drain away as she dove in and out of the various content silos.   Soon I found myself thinking much less about OERs and far more about how to improve their discoverability as a way to improve OER adoption.  I finally realized that discovery of OER materials presents a problem that’s tailor-made for a federated search solution.

Looking across OER sources we find:

  • a large number of search targets (a federated search would save hundreds of clicks),
  • and fortunately each site is more-or-less focused (that’s good, minimizes noise in retrieval sets).
  • redundant content across many of these sources (de-duping retrieval would be a huge win, too bad eccentric metadata makes that difficult), and
  • a vertigo-inducing variety of search interfaces (distilling that to one would be great, wouldn’t it?).

Beyond improving the discovery process, building a federated search engine would also give us the opportunity to take a more expansive view of what constitutes an OER – by searching the more common OER repositories but also hitting sites that offer quality, open educational content even if that isn’t their sole or even primary purpose. Sites like DPLA, HathiTrust (of particular value where the educator belongs to a HathiTrust member institution), Internet Archive, and World Digital Library to name a few.

I pitched the idea to Abe Lederman, CEO at Deep Web Technologies (a company we use to provide several subject-specific metafinders). He was very enthusiastic and offered to help us turn the idea around quickly.  True to his word, within just a few weeks we had a powerful OER discovery service ready to go.  See https://library.gmu.edu/oermetafinder for the interface.  Currently the Mason OER Metafinder allows users to search 16 sites with a single click:

  1. American Memory Project (Library of Congress)
  2. AMSER – Applied Math and Science Education Repository
  3. BC Campus:Open Ed
  4. College Open Textbooks
  5. Digital Public Library of America
  6. Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB)
  7. HathiTrust – Full View Available
  8. Merlot.Org
  9. MIT OpenCourseware
  10. OAOpen.org
  11. OER Commons
  12. OERs at Internet Archive
  13. Open Textbook Library
  14. OpenStax CNX
  15. Project Gutenberg
  16. World Digital Library

After a few local attempts to publicize the tool with limited success, Deep Web Technologies’ staff posted a story about the OER Metafinder on their tech blog (http://bit.ly/2AMBdpt). That post was picked up by Information Today and other corporate PR news sites.  Soon our Metafinder began to build a small audience but still nothing dramatic. Three to four weeks later that we saw a large spike in traffic thanks to a mention of the site in a SPARC Libraries and OER Forum:

“I don’t remember seeing this announcement on any of our OER lists last month, or at OpenEd, but one of our library liaisons just forwarded it to me. It’s the announcement of an aggregated OER search engine created by George Mason and a web tech company, which looks, on the face of it, to be a “Google for OER”. It searches many open archival/book repositories (DPLA, HathiTrust, Internet Archive) as well as the standard OER ones (Merlot, OTL, OpenStax, etc.) and has some great limiters to narrow down results. Congrats GMU!”

This unsolicited mention on a listserv aimed at precisely the right group of people proved catalytic.  Within two days, I found 28 institutions already linking to our OER Metafinder.   Noticing that it was catching on with LibGuides users, I added sample search widget code to our “About the Metafinder” page — – see https://publishing.gmu.edu/the-mason-oer-metafinder-widget/  for details. Today, more than 100 sites are linking to the Metafinder, including five ASERL libraries (<– marked with asterisks below):
1. Albertus Magnus College
2. Anderson University
3. Arizona State University
4. Auraia Library
5. Austin Community College
6. Bates College
7. Bowling Green State University
8. Brandeis University
9. Brigham Young University
10. Brock University
11. Bronx Community College (CUNY)
12. Bucknell University
13. California State University San Marcos
14. Central Connecticut State University
15. Central Michigan University
16. City College of New York (CCNY)
17. Clackamas Community College
18. Clatsop Community College
19. College of the Canyons
20. College of William & Mary*
21. Colorado State University Pueblo
22. Columbus State Community College (Georgia)
23. Community College of Baltimore County
24. Denison University Libraries
25. Eastern Michigan University
26. Florida State University*
27. Fulton-Montgomery Community College
28. George Mason University*
29. George Washington University
30. Howard Community College (Maryland)
31. Hunter College (CUNY)
32. Iowa State University
33. Justice Institute of British Columbia
34. Kirkwood Community College (Iowa)
35. Lakehead University (Ontario)
36. Lansing Community College
37. Leeward Community College (Hawaii)
38. Lehman College (CUNY)
39. Linn-Benton Community College (Oregon)
40. Loyola University New Orleans
41. Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts
42. Massachusetts Maritime Academy
43. Montgomery County Community College (Pennsylvania)
44. National Science and Technology Development Agency (Thailand)
45. New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT)
46. New York University
47. Niagara College (Ontario)
48. Northern Illinois University
49. Northwestern Michigan College
50. Nova Scotia College of Art and Design (NSCAD)
51. OER KnowledgeCloud
52. Open NYS
53. Otterbein University
54. Pasadena City College
55. Piedmont Virginia Community College
56. Pitt Community College
57. Randolph-Macon College
58. Rhode Island College
59. Rutgers University
60. Santa Clara University
61. Shenandoah University
62. Sonoma State University
63. Southern Connecticut State University
64. St. Cloud State University
65. SUNY Cortland
66. SUNY Old Westbury
67. Tacoma Community College
68. Temple University
69. Texas Tech University
70. University of Alaska Anchorage
71. University of Alaska Southeast
72. University of Arizona
73. University of Arkansas
74. University of British Columbia
75. University of California San Diego
76. University of Central Florida
77. University of Colorado
78. University of Houston-Victoria
79. University of Kansas
80. University of Kentucky
81. University of La Verne
82. University of Mary Washington
83. University of Massachusetts Amherst
84. University of Massachusetts Boston
85. University of Massachusetts Lowell
86. University of Missouri – Kansas City
87. University of New Orleans
88. University of North Carolina – Charlotte
89. University of Pittsburgh
90. University of Regina (Saskatchewan)
91. University of Richmond
92. University of South Carolina*
93. University of Texas – Arlington
94. University of Texas – Austin
95. University of the People
96. University of Winnipeg (Manitoba)
97. UtahOER
98. Victoria College
99. Villanova University
100. Virginia Tech*
101. Virginia Wesleyan University
102. Washington State University
103. Western Illinois University
104. Wilmington University
105. Worcester State University

We would love to see other ASERL libraries link to or offer a search box to the Mason OER Metafinder.  We’d also love to hear of other targets to include in our search for OER content.  I can be reached at wallyg <at> gmu.edu for questions or suggestions.



5 Questions With… Dave Hansen

Photo of David Hansen David (Dave) Hansen, Director of Copyright Scholarly Communication, Duke University

This is #4 in our series of get-acquainted posts featuring members of the ASERL Scholarly Communications community.

Q1. Describe your current scholcomm position.

I’m Duke’s Director of Copyright and Scholarly Communication. In that role I spend about half my time focused internally on Duke Libraries, addressing specific copyright issues, helping train librarians and staff about copyright and scholarly communications, and working to improve how we institutionally support, through technology and library services, our faculty and student authors to better communicate their scholarship to the world. The other half of my time I spend working directly with faculty and students to help them understand copyright and the scholarly publishing system, usually with the goal of helping them share their work more broadly. In the Office of Copyright and Scholarly Communication I work with two great colleagues: Paolo Mangiafico works on scholarly communication technology, mostly consulting with faculty about what technological options they have so they can do what they want with their scholarship. Haley Walton works on outreach, helping make sure we’re talking with Duke faculty and grad students at the right time and place to best help them.

Q2. What attracted you to scholcomm work?

Really it was one person, Kevin Smith, who was Duke’s previous Copyright and Scholarly Communications Officer. He is now Dean of Libraries at the University of Kansas. I had just finished law school and was thinking about working somewhere at the intersection of law and libraries, but I wasn’t completely sure where or how. Kevin had advertised a student scholarly communications intern position. I applied, came to work for him, and I loved it. In working with Kevin and meeting with academic authors, I remember being shocked how even the most basic misconceptions about the law could dramatically and negatively impact access to research. It was fun working with Kevin, watching him gently correct those misconceptions and ultimately help increase access to research.

Q3. What is the most rewarding part of your job?

Helping people overcome fear, especially when it comes to copyright law. I suppose because it’s a confusing area of the law, I find many authors and librarians are just terrified of doing something wrong or making a mistake. For the most part, thoughtful risk management alleviates many of those fears and helps move projects forward.

Q4. If you had a magic wand and could change one thing in the scholcomm ecosystem, what would it be?

I would create a legal framework that actually reflects the needs of academics. Right now we all operate under a copyright system that was designed for economic and commercial interests. It just wasn’t designed for the incentive system most academic authors operate under, which focuses on attribution and credit far more than it does money.

Q5. If you were NOT a scholcomm librarian, what would you be?

Probably in private practice, focusing on intellectual property law. But then I wouldn’t get to work in a library every day, which is one of my favorite things about what I do now.

If you’re interested in sharing your scholcomm story, or wish to know more about a fellow ASERL librarian’s path by suggesting they be featured, contact Molly Keener or Andy Wesolek.


NASIG Adopts Core Competencies for Scholarly Communication Librarians

Scholarly communications issues and initiatives are of increasing importance to contemporary library organizations. This is evidenced by the recent substantial increase in the numbers of scholarly communication librarian positions. Finlay, Tsou, and Sugimoto (2015) found that positions for scholarly communication librarians, as a percentage of total open librarian positions, more than doubled between 2006 and 2014. Organizations are clearly investing in these roles, but despite this investment, “scholarly communication” remains a broad and often amorphous term with little consistencies in the job duties of the scholarly communication librarian (SCL) between institutions. Clarifying these roles will assist those creating position descriptions for SCLs, as well as iSchools in the development of curricula.


In 2014 the executive board of NASIG established a task force charged with developing core competencies for scholarly communication librarians. The creation of the task force was timely, as NASIG was actively expanding its vision and mission beyond serials to include the entire information lifecycle, including scholarly communications. Beyond the development of core competencies, the expanded vision and mission offer a professional home for scholarly communication librarians in which they may engage with other librarians, publishers, and vendors collaboratively. One should keep this in mind when reading the core competencies, as the task force recognized the need to address Open Access advocacy in an important but non-ideological way.


The Core Competencies for Scholarly Communication Librarians Task force began their work sifting through hundreds of job ads and position descriptions emphasizing various aspects of scholarly communication librarianship. These were obtained through calls to germane listservs, the ALA Joblist archive, and partnerships with other groups obtaining position descriptions and job ads for similar purposes. To address the broad and amorphous aspects of scholarly communication, the Task Force identified four themes found in all SCLs and five areas in which the SCL may focus, as determined by existing strengths and organizational needs.


The full Document may be found here: http://www.nasig.org/site_page.cfm?pk_association_webpage_menu=310&pk_association_webpage=9435


The Core Competencies outlined in this document will be interesting to revisit going forward. Scholarly communication is a rapidly emerging and evolving field, and I suspect that it matures, we will see fewer general entry-level “scholarly communication librarian” positions and more positions with a stronger focus on the areas of emphasis (eg. Data Management Librarians or Publishing Services Librarians). Moreover, new trends in scholarly communication will likely emerge and should be added to the core competencies. For example, at some point, the core competencies should address the recent explosion in OER services and resources commonly associated with the SCL, potentially as a new area of emphasis.


Road Show Report: ORCID Workshop in Atlanta

orcid-logoOn September 8, 2017 as Hurricane Irma was approaching landfall and thousands of Floridians were packing into Atlanta to avoid its fury, our colleagues at Georgia State University Libraries hosted a one-day “road show” workshop led by ORCID, the researcher identification system (www.orcid.org). Despite the looming storm and the crowds that came with it, approximately 25 librarians from across the region attended the workshop, most from ASERL institutions.

Founded nearly five years ago, ORCID is a nonprofit organization that offers a free 16-digit identifier (“ORCID iD”) to academic authors and other contributors to research and scholarship. This iD number allows researchers to connect themselves with their works and affiliations so their outputs can be correctly attributed to creator(s) and aggregated and tracked throughout their careers. To date, more than 3.8 million ORCID iDs have been minted, and registration is growing at a rate of approximately 25,000 IDs per week. ORCID has produced a fun and informative video that provides an overview of their services: https://vimeo.com/97150912

ORCID iDs are provided at no charge, so how does a not-for-profit membership organization with a staff of 29 people scattered around the world support itself? In its early days, ORCID received initial support from loans from the scholarly communications community and later grant monies, including a significant endowment from the Helmsley Foundation (Leona Helmsley was not always the “queen of mean,” leaving all her fortune to her dog.) Today, ORCID is supported largely by libraries, research institutions, publishers, research funders and other players in the scholarly communications ecosystem that pay annual fees in exchange for real-time access to the ORCID database via Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)

ASERL members have access to deeply discounted ORCID Premium memberships via an agreement with the Greater Western Library Alliance. The discount provides five APIs for a cost of $4,000/year, more than 80% less than ORCID’s “list price” for Premium memberships that are paid by large commercial entities. Several other library consortia (LYRASIS, NERL, Big Ten Academic Alliance, etc.) offer similar discounts. (Note: ORCID’s services and pricing schedule is the same for libraries as for publishers and other commercial users, but only nonprofit organizations receive the deep discounts.)

To achieve full functionality of ORCID is far more complex than I initially realized. This may explain why few universities have fully implemented the complete suite of ORCID services. ORCID’s integration program is called “Collect and Connect.” Full utilization of ORCID includes member organizations (universities, publishers, repositories, etc.) undertaking the following:

  • Confirming the affiliation of author identify of the researcher through an authentication process (OAuth), providing trust in the community;
  • Collecting and storing authenticated ORCID iDs;
  • Displaying iDs on member directories and other sites;
  • Connecting information about affiliation and contributions to an individual’s ORCID record, so creators can share trusted information with other systems and profiles they use;
  • Synchronizing data between systems to improve reporting accuracy and speed  and to allow researchers to spend more time making contributions and less time managing them.

For universities, full implementation includes:

  • Faculty/staff/students signing up for an ORCID iD, using it when prompted (e.g., when publishing an article or applying for a grant), and adding personal information such as links to their profile on relevant websites (personal pages, departmental pages, etc.);
  • Where needed, updating information previously added to ORCID records, such as articles published prior to receiving the ORCID iD. (In some cases this work is done by liaison librarians as a courtesy to the faculty they serve.);
  • University systems providing independent confirmation that a researcher is employed at the institution and pushing that information to their ORCID record;
  • Use of ORCID APIs by university systems (e.g., faculty profiling systems) that facilitate reporting of scholarly output at the institutional level.

Publishers and standards organizations also play a vital role, including:

  • Implementing ORCID IDs as part of their metadata schemas;
  • Using ORCID’s APIs to connect DOIs with iDs to ensure ORCID profiles are up-to-date.

So, it’s complicated. Members of the national ORCID consortia in Australia and Italy have implemented more ORCID services than in other parts of the world. Italy has a nationalized university system that mandated use of ORCID, resulting in over 90% take-up of ORCID among Italian researchers. In Australia, the Australian Access Federation has funded two full-time staff to work closely with universities and their libraries to implement various ORCID-related services. This has resulted in 35 of the consortium’s 40 members having one or more ORCID integrations up and running.  Additionally, a growing number of publishers are requiring authors to provide ORCID iDs for all submissions, incentivizing the use of ORCID from the publisher side.

To help foster greater utilization of the full array of its services in the US, ORCID has suggested US consortia consider supporting a model similar to the one used in Australia: to fund staff specifically to work directly with libraries to develop the communications and systems needed to implement ORCID fully. How this would be done across various library groups is yet to be determined – perhaps via a surcharge on the annual ORCID membership fee paid by each US library to cover staffing costs? LYRASIS is leading the development of a national survey that will determine the interest and price levels that ORCID members (via their consortia) are willing to pay for this kind of direct system implementation support.  The benefits are clear, as seen in the Australian example.  Given the huge discounts on the ORCID Premium membership fees enjoyed by libraries and the apparent need for implementation assistance, it seems a modest surcharge might be a useful method to ensure libraries get the most from their investment in ORCID. This survey is expected to be distributed to consortia (which will then distribute it to their member libraries) later this Fall.