[Edling] Fwd: FW: Language & Education and ORCiD

Tue Jun 13 06:22:17 UTC 2017

Dear colleagues,

First of all, thank you very much for expressing your opinion about ORCiD,
it was very helpful. I wanted here to join the conversation and add a few
of my concernts. See my email to Helen Wheeler below.

I would appreciate any piece of advice you can give for novice scholars
like myself in situations when the journals where i want to get published
require me to have an ORCiD.

Thank you very much,
Alsu

Alsu Gilmetdinova, PhD
Head, Office of International Affairs, KNRTU-KAI
*amgilmetdinova at kai.ru <amgilmetdinova at kai.ru>*
alsurgf at gmail.com

New publication:
*Principals as gatekeepers of language policy implementation in Kazan,
Russia*

*http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13670050.2016.1231772
<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13670050.2016.1231772> *

*From:* Гильметдинова Алсу Махмутовна
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 9:15 AM
*To:* 'Wheeler, Helen'
*Subject:* RE: Language & Education and ORCiD

Dear Helen,

Below are some of my questions and concerns based on the information
provided on the ORCiD website:

1)      Mission: “to solve name ambiguity problem”. I have never
experienced any name ambiguity problem or had my colleagues or other
professors complain about this issue. What names do they mean? Names of
scholars? The question is where did this problem come from? Who articulated
it? Is there any evidence to support that there is such a problem?

2)      Depositing Data in the registry: “you grant a license…a perpetual,
irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free license to sublicense, reproduce,
store, modify, transmit…”. Why is there such an exhaustive list of
permissions that a user has to grant to basically anybody? Especially, why
would a user allow others to “modify” the data? More so, in the next
clauses it states that “there is no way to stop the public from continuing
to use that data”. That means that once a user makes the data public,
he/she can no longer have the rights to it, rights to take it out. What if
for some reasons I no longer want that information to be public, because of
some personal reasons, or because I get blackmailed or mistreated? Next, in
subsection “private” it states that “only our staff… with a ‘need to know’
to manage the Registry… are able to view” the data. What does “need to
know” imply here? Who are these individuals? Can we trust that they abide
by the same confidentiality policies? If they are third party, what rules
apply to them for working with such data?

3)      Limitations on use. It is stated that “ORCiD is a community-based
initiative developed by and for the research community”. Who is this
community? Who are the people initiating it? You can tell me that their
privacy is protected, but it doesn’t serve the purpose if we don’t even
know where and how the idea came from. Scholarly community is so big, and I
cannot imagine that a handful of individuals, regardless of their status,
authority and other credentials can and should have the right to dictate
how such research related data as ORCiD aims to keep should be collected
and used. Another question in this section is the ability of organizations
to create ORCiD records on behalf of affiliated individuals. Why should the
researcher lose their voice just because their organization made the
decision to join ORCiD? Where is researcher’s freedom to make their own
informed decisions about research related activities? ORCiD creates another
subtle mechanism of controlling and forcing faculty, who under the force of
organization lose their rights to make decisions about how their data is
collected, stored and shared. This is very problematic.

4)      Links: what are the links to the third party websites? And if
ORCiD’s Terms and Conditions do not apply to them, how can the users be
sure that their data is handled properly?

5)      Warranties: It is stated that “YOU USE THE ORCID REGISTRY AND
WEBSITES AT YOUR OWN RISKS”, but they don’t specify what kind of risks
might be encountered: the current ones and the ones in the predictable
future?

All in all, I find it quite problematic that this initiative was introduced
so abruptly, without prior public announcements at conferences, in
educational magazines, vialistserves, emails, etc. It seems that the
decision was made, in fact, WITHOUT any consultations with the research
community, it seems that this decision and terms of its use are corporate
business, and not researcher friendly. More so, as a novice scholar I feel
especially very pressured. Just the other day I had to submit an article
and in that journal I had no choice but to create an ORCiD account if I
wanted to get it reviewed. This is coercive, covert policy mechanisms that
goes against the very nature of what research should be about and the role
of the researcher in the process of knowledge production.

Thank you for your attention.

Kind regards,

Dr.Alsu Gilmetdinova
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/edling/attachments/20170613/9f1900fd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Edling mailing list
Edling at bunner.geol.lu.se
http://bunner.geol.lu.se/mailman/listinfo/edling