The Open Researcher & Contributor ID (ORCID) registry presents a unique opportunity to solve the problem of author name ambiguity. At its core the value of the ORCID registry is that it crosses disciplines, organizations, and countries, linking ORCID with both existing identifier schemes as well as publications and other research activities. By supporting linkages across multiple datasets – clinical trials, publications, patents, datasets – such a registry becomes a switchboard for researchers and publishers alike in managing the dissemination of research findings. We describe use cases for embedding ORCID identifiers in manuscript submission workflows, prior work searches, manuscript citations, and repository deposition. We make recommendations for storing and displaying ORCID identifiers in publication metadata to include ORCID identifiers, with CrossRef integration as a specific example. Finally, we provide an overview of ORCID membership and integration tools and resources.

The purpose of this literature review is to identify the challenges, opportunities, and gaps in knowledge with regard to the use of metadata in scholarly communications. This paper compiles and interprets literature in sections based on the professional groups, or stakeholders, within scholarly communications metadata: researchers, funders, publishers, librarians, service providers, and data curators. It then ends with a 'bird's eye view' of the metadata supply chain which presents the network of relationships and interdependencies between stakeholders. This paper seeks to lay the groundwork for new approaches to present problems in scholarly communications metadata. KeywordsScholarly communication, metadata, metadata supply chain, research data management, Metadata 2020 ‡ § | ¶ # This review assumes at least a basic knowledge of how metadata records are created, shared, and used. Nevertheless, two core terms are defined below to frame the discussion.Scholarly communication is the process by which research is conducted, transformed into content, and distributed to a wider audience. The majority of the resources featured in this literature review are concerned with the physical and life sciences. The implications of this review, however, can be extended in many cases to the social sciences and humanities which have the same need to describe and share scholarly works. The majority of resources also treat the published journal article as the primary form of scholarly output, though emerging literature increasingly focuses on research data and the research process as opposed to finalized articles.Metadata in this context is the information that accompanies the various stages and outputs of research. Common to most scholarly research are metadata elements such as author, date, title, subject, language, and standard identifier. In the case of research data, metadata describes specialized aspects such as the geographic location where the data was collected, the name and identifier of the research funder, the institutional affiliation of the researchers, contributors such as editors and data curators, or the number of the grant award funding the research (DataCite Metadata Working Group 2016). Metadata for journal article includes identifiers such as the International Standard Serial Number (ISSN, the numeric identifier assigned to journals), volume, issue, page numbers, or epub identifier. In the case of monographs (books), specialized metadata includes the International Standard Book Number (ISBN), title, page number, and author of individual chapters. These and other metadata elements are essential for disseminating research outputs. Metadata gives proper credit to research funders, ensures that research can be reproduced, facilitates others in finding research, allows authors to build a portfolio, and measures the scholarly impact of an article. StakeholdersPublishers, service providers, researchers, funders, librarians, and data curators are the stakeholders of metadata in scholarly communication. The relationships ...

Key points Peer review is used to evaluate research, including publications, scientific awards, and grant proposals, and there is a continuum of at least six approaches to review from completely closed, double‐blind review to fully‐open and citable peer review. It is getting harder to find suitable experts to serve as reviewers so publishers and others are experimenting with methods to incentivize researcher participation, with a growing interest in enabling citation of peer‐review activity as a component. A Working Group on Peer Review Service, facilitated by CASRAI, was created to develop a data model and citation standard for peer‐review activity that can be used to support both existing and new review models. Standardized citation structures for reviews can enable the inclusion of peer‐review activity in personal recognition and evaluation, as well the ability to refer to reviews as part of the scholarly literature.