Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

All Researchers To Be Allocated Unique IDs

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the you-are-number-six dept.

Open Source 164

ananyo writes with information on a new scheme to help uniquely identify authors in the face of ambiguous names. From the article: "In 2011, Y. Wang was the world's most prolific author of scientific publications, with 3,926 to their name — a rate of more than 10 per day. Never heard of them? That's because they are a mixture of many different Y. Wangs, each indistinguishable in the scholarly record. The launch later this year of the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID), an identifier system that will distinguish between authors who share the same name, could soon solve the problem, allowing research papers to be associated correctly with their true author. Instead of filling out personal details on countless electronic forms associated with submitting papers or applying for grants, a researcher could also simply type in his or her ORCID number. Various fields would be completed automatically by pulling in data from other authorized sources, such as databases of papers, citations, grants and contact details. ORCID does not intend to offer such services itself; the idea is that other organizations will use the open-access ORCID database to build their own services."

cancel ×

164 comments

Unique IDs eh? (5, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#40156399)

Hmm. A new program to uniquely track and identify scientists springs up in the middle of an all out war between science and the idiocracy. Totally coincidental. *adjusts tin foil hat*

Re:Unique IDs eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40156441)

Scientists are at war with a movie?

Re:Unique IDs eh? (3, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#40156731)

Assigning UIDs to researchers, to resolve ambiguity in publications and attribution?

This sounds like a new twist on the old "Your papers, please" .

Re:Unique IDs eh? (3, Insightful)

mikael (484) | about 2 years ago | (#40157201)

Is it any different from an Email address or a bank account number?

If you have gone to the effort to research, write and publish a paper the last thing you want is for people not to know who or where you are.

To make it really useful, you should be able to register as an independent researcher and take it with you wherever you go.

The only downside is thst it might become like the Chinese record of achievement.

Re:Unique IDs eh? (3, Funny)

plover (150551) | about 2 years ago | (#40157517)

"GUID, bitte."

Re:Unique IDs eh? (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 2 years ago | (#40157235)

Scientists are at war with a movie?

This post is one of the most brilliant illustrations of Poe's Law that I've ever seen. What scares me is that I can't tell if the brilliance is intentional or not.

Re:Unique IDs eh? (1)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | about 2 years ago | (#40157395)

Weird. I did a search for Poe's law on bing and it came up with zero results. I can't remember the last time I did a search and got zero results.

Re:Unique IDs eh? (1)

Minwee (522556) | about 2 years ago | (#40157495)

Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

Re:Unique IDs eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40157575)

I don't know how you searched, but I immediately get about 1.2 million hits.
I'll just give the first: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
Oh, and the second because it's a Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Re:Unique IDs eh? (1)

nemui-chan (550759) | about 2 years ago | (#40156443)

I hear they also get these spiffy armbands they can^H^H^H are required to wear.

Re:Unique IDs eh? (1)

jakimfett (2629943) | about 2 years ago | (#40156613)

And if they won't wear the armbands, they get to attend mandatory voluntary retraining sessions until they learn the errors of their ways...

Wait...where have I heard this one before [wikipedia.org] ?

My only question...why not simply tie research submissions to a researcher's OpenID? Google has all that information anyway...

Re:Unique IDs eh? (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 2 years ago | (#40156981)

No armbands. They'll just be identified by their pieces of flair.

Re:Unique IDs eh? (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about 2 years ago | (#40156449)

There has always been a war between science and the idiocracy. It's just usually previously we attached a different prefix to "-cracy".

Re:Unique IDs eh? (1)

Slippery_Hank (2035136) | about 2 years ago | (#40157165)

There has always been a war between science and the idiocracy. It's just usually previously we attached a different prefix to "-cracy".

I thought it was a different suffix to Idio

Re:Unique IDs eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40156469)

first they came for the scientists...

Great News for Virginia! (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 2 years ago | (#40156473)

Hmm. A new program to uniquely track and identify scientists springs up in the middle of an all out war between science and the idiocracy. Totally coincidental. *adjusts tin foil hat*

No need to adjust your tinfoil hat. I read this article and thought "Oh, great, now Virginia's Attorney General can conduct more accurate witch hunts [slashdot.org] ." (he was unable to properly identify over 30 scientists and researchers)

Re:Great News for Virginia! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40157481)

right, a politician criticizing what he sees as wasteful spending (while criticizing the grant process and not the scientists themselves) is a "witch hunt".

Re:Unique IDs eh? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40156539)

Alex Jones, is that you?

Is Y. Wang the inventor of Wang computers? I hear women in offices love their Wangs.

Why not solve this problem by just using the full name?
Oh well. (shrug)

Re:Unique IDs eh? (1)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | about 2 years ago | (#40156755)

Nope, that was An Wang [invent.org]

Re:Unique IDs eh? (1)

LostOne (51301) | about 2 years ago | (#40156773)

Full names are not necessarily unique either.

Re:Unique IDs eh? (1)

jc42 (318812) | about 2 years ago | (#40157335)

Full names are not necessarily unique either.

Indeed. A few years ago, I ran across a US Census Bureau web page that gave the number of people with specific first or last names, and an estimate (likely from multiplying the fractions) of the number of people in the US with a given first+last name. It said that there are about 1800 people in the US with the same name as me, and my family name isn't even Smith or Jones or any of the other top 100.

Through the years, I've seen a number of bibliographies that list things that I've written, intermixed with things written by various of those others with my name. So far, I haven't complained, since this makes us all look better than we really are. ;-)

Still, it could be useful if we had a reasonable way to separate out such things and give individuals the proper acknowledgement for their contributions to our knowledge. But I'd be surprised if we could actually do this job right, within the lifetimes of people now living.

Among those of us familiar with the old music of the British Isles, one ongoing frustration is the misattribution of music written by Niel Gow or Neil Gow. One of those was the grandfather of the other; do you know which was which? The intermediate in the male line was Nathaniel Gow, who also wrote a lot of good tunes, and collectors also confuse him with his father and his son despite the different name. Somehow, I suspect that this Unique ID system won't be extended to them, any more than I expect it to be implemented accurately for living authors.

(And none of this will stop current publishers from claiming copyright for their works. ;-)

Re:Unique IDs eh? (1)

rgmoore (133276) | about 2 years ago | (#40157397)

Full names are not necessarily unique either.

Or constant, for that matter. Even in academia, some people (mostly women) still change their names when they marry, which can add to the confusion. Imagine tracking all the papers by Mary Jane Smith nee Jones. Having a unique personal ID would solve the changing name problem as well as the non-unique name problem.

Re:Unique IDs eh? (1)

fibonacci8 (260615) | about 2 years ago | (#40156829)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Wang [wikipedia.org] China has been dealing with the trouble of only having 100ish surnames and 1 or 2 character given names for years now, it's not limited to researchers.

Re:Unique IDs eh? (2)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about 2 years ago | (#40156969)

They should ask Hollywood celebrities for advice on broadening their pool of names for babies. They come up with all sorts of fascinating name.

Re:Unique IDs eh? (4, Insightful)

jdgeorge (18767) | about 2 years ago | (#40156869)

Why not solve this problem by just using the full name?

Because it wouldn't solve the problem at all. There are many researchers with the exact same full name. One reason we have Social Security numbers in the US is because full names have a strong tendency to be similar.

That said, I'm sure the Wangs can come up with a solution. huh-huh...

Re:Unique IDs eh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40157533)

Completely correct, but this would do even less to solve the problem in China. China has had a problem with a lack of unique full names for quite some time. According to this [hindu.com] , there's 100,000 people named Wang Tao. I imagine that at least a few of them are in similar fields. There's a pretty simple explanation. [wikipedia.org] Basically, the 100 most common surnames are used by 85% of the population. There's only between 3000-4000 surnames currently being used at all. Compare that to the United States, which has well over 100,000 surnames in common use.

There are many similar systems... (5, Interesting)

bakuun (976228) | about 2 years ago | (#40156425)

... - one of them, for example, is ResearcherID at http://www.researcherid.com/ [researcherid.com] . None of them have really taken off so far, and there is nothing to say that this one will. I am skeptical.

Re:There are many similar systems... (1)

Kam Solusar (974711) | about 2 years ago | (#40156865)

Isn't that what authority records and VIAF [viaf.org] are for?

16-digit ID (3, Insightful)

Alomex (148003) | about 2 years ago | (#40156461)

I'm so glad they made the ID a fixed length 16-digit number. Experience shows that we are very good at predicting the total number of IDs ever to be needed.

Plus 54 bits should be more than enough, so no need to make the number extensible, thus wasting one precious bit as a field extension identifier.

Re:16-digit ID (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#40156503)

How big of a population explosion are you expecting?

Re:16-digit ID (2)

twistedcubic (577194) | about 2 years ago | (#40156977)

Organizations and their sub-organizations, as well as devices themselves (e.g. Watson) may have research IDs. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of machine researchers!

Re:16-digit ID (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#40157149)

"How big of a population explosion are you expecting?"

It depends if T Wang's Cloning project is a success.

It could be a massive explosion.

Re:16-digit ID (3, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 years ago | (#40156531)

Dont worry. The number of researchers, scientists and engineers is going down, not up.

Re:16-digit ID (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40156947)

Bloggers on the other hand... .

Re:16-digit ID (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 2 years ago | (#40157027)

The number of researchers, scientists and engineers is going down, not up.

In terms of proportion of population, that may be true; in terms of absolute numbers, I'm pretty sure it's not. The number of papers published continues to grow at a more-or-less exponential rate, and while it's true that the "publish or perish" mentality forces researchers to have their names on more papers now than ever before (which is easier than it used to be, because author lists are also getting longer; it's not unusual for papers in biology to have ten or more authors listed) I have a hard time believing that the number of people writing the papers isn't also growing steadily.

Re:16-digit ID (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about 2 years ago | (#40157567)

which is easier than it used to be, because author lists are also getting longer; it's not unusual for papers in biology to have ten or more authors listed

So true. Here's [nature.com] a paper with 27 authors listed.... here's [nature.com] another one with a whopping 80 authors!

Re:16-digit ID (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#40156543)

If this program runs long enough for this to be an issue then it would have to be very very successful for many hundreds of years.

Re:16-digit ID (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#40156601)

If the Machines take over and use researchers as power cells with their unique 16-digit number to identify them, each researcher could take up 1.5 square feet and they would still run out of land area on Earth before than ran out of IDs.

Re:16-digit ID (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40156913)

You're neglecting the third and forth dimensions.

Re:16-digit ID (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40157157)

Y R U racist against the Fifth Dimension?

Re:16-digit ID (1)

simonbp (412489) | about 2 years ago | (#40156621)

Are you predicting that there are going to be 10^16 scientists anytime soon? If they are all on Earth, that would be just less than 20 scientists per square meter (or about 65 scientist per square meter if you just count land area).

Re:16-digit ID (1)

kbg (241421) | about 2 years ago | (#40157047)

Well, scientists have a tendency to die after 100 years or less, so it is possible to to cram 20 or more on a square meter when they are under ground and made of ash :)

Re:16-digit ID (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40156711)

9 999 999 999 999 999
I have no idea what number that is. What comes after trillions? Anyway that's 10,000 trillion people that can be identified with this system..... more than the total number of humans that have ever lived on earth. More than the 40 billion that lived on Asimov's metal world/capital planet called Trantor. (Or when Lucas ripped it off: Coruscant.)

Re:16-digit ID (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40157145)

It's called Quintillions... and the only book that I've read that would even approach that would be Niven's Ringworld... and I'm sure that even that would fall short. Perhaps a large star cluster full of Ringworlds?

Re:16-digit ID (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#40157005)

I'm so glad they made the ID a fixed length 16-digit number. Experience shows that we are very good at predicting the total number of IDs ever to be needed.

You know, a financial payment card (credit card, debit card, etc) are 16 digits in length, The first 6 are special as is the last, which mean there are 9 unique ID digits in it. Yet we don't seem to be running out of numbers even though when a bunch get "liberated" from a payment processor, most financial institutions simply re-issue a new number to you. (And it's not like they dare re-issue an old number either - otherwise they could've saved all the effort and stayed with 14-digit numbers). There seems to be little concern about running out of card numbers.

And if they did the number coding right, they could make it a 17 digit number so when we're all spacers and such, you can prepend "0" to all existing numberholders and it'll still work out.

Slightly lesser known (5, Funny)

nutgirdle (2640927) | about 2 years ago | (#40156479)

is researcher M.Y. Wang. He does mostly the same experiment once or twice a day.

Re:Slightly lesser known (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40156579)

Would that be the guy who is working on human endurance and experimenting with ways to prolong it?

Godspeed to that fellow.

Re:Slightly lesser known (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40156823)

He is working on the new handshaking protocol, right?

Re:Slightly lesser known (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40156979)

Apparently, a micro-biologist.

Yes, you saw what I did there.

public key (5, Insightful)

ags1 (1883204) | about 2 years ago | (#40156511)

Can't we just sign docs with a private key? The public key's finger print can be your unique id. Or are we still attached to paper?

Re:public key (1)

rokstar (865523) | about 2 years ago | (#40157441)

Less an attachment to paper and more scientifically literacy does not automatically translate to computer literacy. Granted, I'd bet a random sample of researchers would do better than a sample of the general public in terms of being able to pick up the basics of public/private key management; however, you are still going to find people at all levels where it would be easier to teach a dog rocket surgery.

Problem? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#40156517)

Is there a serious problem with authors sharing names? I am sure it happens, but (a) it seems unlikely that they would be in the same field and (b) it seems even less likely that they would be at the same institution and (c) even less likely that their contact information would be the same so are there really cases where there is confusion over who wrote a paper?

Re:Problem? (4, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 2 years ago | (#40156669)

I have a last name that is very uncommon in the Netherlands, even more so because it is capitalized differently than usual, and it is "misspelled" to boot. Even so, there's a guy (not family) who shares my first and last name, went to the same university, same department, and graduated on a topic similar to mine. We've published on overlapping topics. So yes, confusion does happen, and I've often been contacted by someone looking for the other guy. Sounds nice since I have just four publications to my name whereas he went into research and has many more, but of course I can't take credit...

Re:Problem? (1)

garbut (1990152) | about 2 years ago | (#40157019)

Do the two of you share the same email address too?

Re:Problem? (1)

gotfork (1395155) | about 2 years ago | (#40157225)

There goes my slight advantage in academia due to a unique last name (a fairly common one in the Ukraine but spelled in an unusual way in English). I always hoped that it would make up for being trivial to cyber-stalk but oh well.

Re:Problem? (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40156687)

Actually, there is. My wife is a PhD who studies stroke and epilepsy. There is another scientist in Germany who has the same first initial and last name who also studies stroke. He's been writing papers ~20 years longer than my wife has, but when you search for her papers, you get craploads(SAE standard measure) of his, as well.

Re:Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40156775)

Is there a serious problem with authors sharing names?

Yes.

(a) it seems unlikely that they would be in the same field.

It's not.

(b) it seems even less likely that they would be at the same institution

It is not uncommon at all for a researcher to work for more than 1 institution during their research career. Sometimes several different institutions.

(c) even less likely that their contact information would be the same

see A and B above. Plus your contact information may change if you move labs/buildings within an institution.

so are there really cases where there is confusion over who wrote a paper?>

Yes. That's why several different ID systems beyond the one in this article have been proposed/used by different groups. None have yet taken off.

Re:Problem? (2)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#40156867)

Yes. And people switch institutions, and fields. At the moment, if someone has a common name, looking up their papers is an exercise in AI. With a unique identifier you'd be able to tell Google Scholar "get me all the other papers by this author in the last ten years."

Re:Problem? (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 2 years ago | (#40156873)

I am sure it happens, but (a) it seems unlikely that they would be in the same field

I have a few name collisions just in my own reference database (i.e., list of papers to which I've referred in my own work.) I can pretty much guarantee that if you look at the author lists for any major single-subject journal, you'll find a whole bunch of identical $FIRST_INITIAL $LAST_NAME entries which are not, in fact, the same people.

Hell, I have a pretty rare (in the US, at least) last name -- and occasionally I still get e-mails from people who think I'm the Daniel Dvorkin who wrote a paper on psoriasis in 1989. It's not entirely unreasonable, since my name appears on a couple of papers related to inflammatory disease, but I'm a grad student in Colorado, not a dermatologist in Pennsylvania ...

and (b) it seems even less likely that they would be at the same institution and (c) even less likely that their contact information would be the same so are there really cases where there is confusion over who wrote a paper

True enough, but people who are looking at author names are not necessarily looking at the entire paper (where contact information is usually given.) A related problem is that journal publications are increasingly subject to various kinds of text data mining, and rightly or wrongly, the format for fields like author institution and contact information isn't standardized from journal to journal -- and in academia, both institutions and e-mail addresses are subject to frequent change. If you published a paper five years ago while at the University of East Dakota and your e-mail in the corresponding author field was given as betterunixthanunix@eastdak.edu, and you're now at South Virginia State with the address butu@svs.edu, good luck getting any database to make that connection without human assistance.

Re:Problem? (2)

godrik (1287354) | about 2 years ago | (#40156987)

We developed recently a web service for recommending papers, reviewers and journals out of the citations of a paper ( http://theadvisor.osu.edu/ [osu.edu] ). Having conflict in the names can be problematic. Many paper recommendation algorithms use the property that two papers share the same authors, they must be somewhat related. Having name conflict lower the quality of that assumption. Though, some database are already disambiguated. For instance DBLP adds an ID to the name in case there is more than one. (but it is a manual process)

Re:Problem? (2)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40156999)

Think of the birthday paradox [wikipedia.org] . It's quite unlikely that any given researcher has the same name as any other given researcher. But there are n!/(2(n-2)!) pairs to consider, which gets big really fast, so you have to adjust your expectations for multiple comparisons.

Re:Problem? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 2 years ago | (#40157039)

People move between institutions and their contact information changes. So if you insist on a match on all those fields you will reduce the chances of incorrectly indicating papers as being by the same author but you will increase the chance of incorrectly indicating papers as being by different authors.

Re:Problem? (1)

mikael (484) | about 2 years ago | (#40157253)

The funny thing is, similarnames seem to have similar levels of achievement. Perhaps parents were in similar social circles.

What??!?!? (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | about 2 years ago | (#40156533)

I changed my name to Steve Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious for nothing?!?!?

Re:What??!?!? (3, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#40156671)

Oh great, another guy with the same name as me. No wonder no one knew I was the one that published on Creating Cold Fusion Using Two Matchsticks, A Fake Mustache, and a Left-Handed Monkey Wrench.

Re:What??!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40156767)

His name is my name too...

Re:What??!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40156893)

John Jacob .... is that you?

I'm not gonna help them ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40156557)

Why would I want to help them in making all kind of dumb statistics anyway ?
I just don't care who is the "world's most prolific"/most read/most cited/etc. author in my day to day research.

Re:I'm not gonna help them ! (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#40156615)

If you read a paper that you found interesting wouldn't you want a way to find more papers from that individual?

This isn't about statistics, it's about use and the confusion of names. It's about making your job easier if you are a researcher.

Re:I'm not gonna help them ! (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#40156657)

If you read a paper that you found interesting wouldn't you want a way to find more papers from that individual?

Papers generally have the authors' contact information; if you are really having problems just using a person's name and the field they are in, you can send them an email or visit their website.

Re:I'm not gonna help them ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40156815)

Except for at my university, where two people in the same department have the same name. I'm sure that it is a real problem, especially when you get to people named John Smith or Mary Williams. Heck, sometimes being at the same university is bad enough.

Additionally, when doing a search, you can't search for John Smith, who teaches at ISU. All you get is, John Smith, and then searching through the thousands of papers for the ones written by the guy you want at ISU. Wait, but he moved to MSU now, so I have to search through all the papers for both.

Re:I'm not gonna help them ! (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 2 years ago | (#40156851)

People move insitutions, that "John Smith" published with "Princeton University" as his affiliation 25 years ago will probably be enough to find out who it is, but it won't be trivial.

I suspect this is more useful for people trying to find well published people. You know a pharma company saying: "We want to find an oncologist who publishes a lot and gets cited a lot so we can convince them to do some trial work on our new drug and hence publish on it a lot. Find me the top 25 publishers on X in the last 10 years, and some of those brown paper bags filled with cash."

Re:I'm not gonna help them ! (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#40156881)

Contact information changes, and frequently the paper only carries contact info for one author.

DBLP / Google scholar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40156577)

Doesn't DBLP adequately address this?

Make them all adopt unique names! (5, Interesting)

acidradio (659704) | about 2 years ago | (#40156609)

The Writers Guild of America requires that all members have unique names. There cannot be two of the same person as to prevent confusion. This is evident with David X. Cohen, well known as a writer for The Simpsons and Futurama. His real name is David S. Cohen but the Writers Guild of America already had a David S., so he took David X. Cohen.

Re:Make them all adopt unique names! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40156885)

That's... kinda cool. Gives everyone a chance to have a cool/unique name. Unfortunately, in a couple centuries, we'll have run out of Xs, Zs, and such cool letters, and everybody'll be stuck with crap like First H. Last.

Re:Make them all adopt unique names! (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about 2 years ago | (#40157063)

Well, fuck you very much!

Sincerely,

Stephen H. Foerster

Re:Make them all adopt unique names! (2)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about 2 years ago | (#40157275)

Jesus H. Christ, do you have to be so belligerent?

France used to do that, to some extent (2)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#40156975)

France used to require government approval for children's names when registering births. This was a francophone thing, not a uniqueness thing. But it could have been expanded to use a uniqueness check. Corporation and D/B/A names have to be unique within their jurisdiction.

Names in China used to be disambiguated by asking "What is your village?" This is no longer very helpful.

Re:Make them all adopt unique names! (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about 2 years ago | (#40157049)

David H. Lawrence XVII, the guy who played the Puppetmaster on Heroes, had a similar problem. His Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] explains: "The 'XVII' in his name was a way for Lawrence to distinguish himself from previous David Lawrences already registered with SAG. At the time, he was the 17th David Lawrence listed on IMDB, and appended the number to his name upon his own registry."

Re:Make them all adopt unique names! (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 2 years ago | (#40157299)

People really should stop naming their kids after D.H. Lawrence [wikipedia.org]

Re:Make them all adopt unique names! (3, Informative)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 2 years ago | (#40157105)

There are many, many more scientists than there are members of WGA.

Moot problem? (3, Funny)

DeeEff (2370332) | about 2 years ago | (#40156667)

Overall, I thought having multiple researchers with the same name was a good thing.

Then we could each take credit for one another's work, and we'd all collectively be the biggest badass in science. It'd sure make research funding easier, in any case.

Just a reminder for ORCIDs (1)

FilmedInNoir (1392323) | about 2 years ago | (#40156673)

This has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with World of Warcraft or Lord of the Rings.

Re:Just a reminder for ORCIDs (1)

The Mister Purple (2525152) | about 2 years ago | (#40156739)

I was kind of hoping that a TROLLID system would be developed for Internet forum posters.

Re:Just a reminder for ORCIDs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40157285)

No, it's about the Sixth World. Apparently UGE is happening early... throws the whole timeline off.

Anyway, in a few years, ORCIDs and other metahuman registration schemes will be consolidated and applied to humans as well, in the new SIN system. I am not happy...

Y Wang? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40156701)

Because it's there.

wu's on first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40157015)

Y Wang?
Why Wang?
no, Yu Wang.
Don't make this about me, why Wang? Y Gnot Dong?
Too many Wangs.

Saruman's permission? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40156779)

Sorry, but ORCID is the intellectual property of Saruman.

Google Scholar (1)

golden age villain (1607173) | about 2 years ago | (#40156817)

There is already a profusion of similar ID systems operated by the big players in the field. For instance, Web of Knowledge http://apps.webofknowledge.com/ [webofknowledge.com] and Scopus http://www.scopus.com/ [scopus.com] already have some kind of an automated author sorting system behind their paywall. I think that Thomson is also behind ResearcherID. Plus there is ResearchGate which creates a profile for you without asking you anything and computes a totally non-transparent metric of your impact as a scientist. In the end, I think that free and transparent will prevail, that is Google Scholar. It is simple, accessible by anyone and already provides your h-index (yes I know how poor of a metric it is). Only you can create a profile for yourself and there is a minimal but meaningful level of control to check that the person creating the profile is indeed who he claims he is. Admittedly, it does not solve the Wang problem but there can be only so many Y. Wang in your tiny field of interest so searching for " Y. Wang + insert favorite keyword here " should do the trick.

Taking an interesting postion (2)

Bork (115412) | about 2 years ago | (#40156895)

It is interesting on their position on this, we will create the method but someone else will have to create the database and maintain it. What I see here is that they see a bag of worms when it comes to privacy issues and do not what to touch that part of it. If an issue results in some aspect of the collection of such information, ORCID’s only involvement will be the DB structure. They had better include some temple or recommended best know practices on how a collection of this data should be handled.

Creating it is one thing, operating such a creation should also be addressed before untended consequences happen.

Re:Taking an interesting postion (1)

Bork (115412) | about 2 years ago | (#40156917)

Should have used unintended, not untended.

Re:Taking an interesting postion (1)

slew (2918) | about 2 years ago | (#40157577)

It is interesting on their position on this, we will create the method but someone else will have to create the database and maintain it. What I see here is that they see a bag of worms when it comes to privacy issues and do not what to touch that part of it. If an issue results in some aspect of the collection of such information, ORCID’s only involvement will be the DB structure. They had better include some temple or recommended best know practices on how a collection of this data should be handled.

Creating it is one thing, operating such a creation should also be addressed before untended consequences happen.

FWIW, I think privacy and it's evil twin identity theft are probably issues that they shouldn't be solving since they are proposing some sort of cheezy author validated "password" system. They don't seem to have any way to address anything about keeping people from taking credit for publications of others with the same "name" (CV fraud), or publishing crap papers under someone's name to ruin their reputation, or other types of identity theft, so hopefully they aren't trying to do this. Although they are mostly looking at attribution disambiguation, and centralizing the disclosures, conflicts of interest, duplicate works, and author fees and other thing to reduce the cost of administration of journals, but they seem to be very naiive about credential security (sorta how DNS was naiive about resource record security back in the old days when everyone was playing nice)...

Now is the time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40157017)

To change my name to Y. Wang

Ausweis for all EU citizens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40157197)

It's not just scientists, all EU citizens will soon have an official Internet ID [zdnet.co.uk] . And then there will be the draconian anti-circumvention laws to be introduced later... and why not put this same ID on a RFID chip inside your body?

Why? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#40157229)

Why cant they just do "Researchername,DOB"?

If you have 20 researchers all named I.P. Freely and are all born on 12/13/1992 then I think there is a bigger problem here.

Re:Why? (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 2 years ago | (#40157447)

If you have 20 researchers all named I.P. Freely and are all born on 12/13/1992 then I think there is a bigger problem here.

Yeah, definitely a potential overflow problem.

huge for some students (2)

Jarwulf (530523) | about 2 years ago | (#40157473)

This would actually be a huge boon for students looking for a research mentor or PI. I spent months trawling through google and WoS looking through faculty and it was a gigantic mess trying to separate out who was who. The professors of Asian origin were by far the worst to get through as they had 200 other guys with the same name boosting their publication counts to absurd levels. Its made worse by the habit of moving around the country and name abbreviations. Algorithms and narrowing the search criteria could only get you so far since you still have thousands of Chens working in biochemistry at the same time. This could make an hour long search instantaneous.

why the need for a "system"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40157521)

just use a UUID. In case of collisions, hold a giant worldwide party.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...