Search for a command to run...
The aim of this research report is to evaluate researchers' investment in academic social networks and in researcher digital identifiers, and more specifically ORCID, in five French teaching and research institutions. It is divided into 3 parts.The first two parts of this research report take up and complement a study carried out in 2019 and published in 2020 in the journal Plos One (Boudry & Durand-Barthez, 2020). The aim of this study was to assess researchers' investment in academic social networks (ASNs) and author identifier services (AIDs) at the University of Caen Normandie, in order to analyze temporal trends over five years. Five tools were tested (3 AIDs: ORCID, ResearcherID and IdHAL; 2 ASNs: ResearchGate and Academia). The study was completed with data not used in 2019, by querying ORCID APIs to analyze the content of researchers' ORCID profiles.The final part of this report is devoted exclusively to the ORCID identifier, and evaluates the investment in this identifier by researchers at five French teaching and research establishments (CIRAD (centre de Coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement), INSA (Institut national des sciences appliquées) de Toulouse, université de Perpignan Via Domitia and université de Strasbourg). The content of the ORCID profiles of researchers from these five institutions was also analyzed by querying the ORCID APIs.The main findings of this study are:-Among the five platforms studied, the number of researchers who had a profile on two of these platforms (ORCID or IdHAL) increased very significantly (over 150% and 300% increase respectively), while on the other platforms the increase was much more moderate between 2019 and 2023;-As already pointed out in the national survey we carried out in 2023 (Bouchard & Boudry, 2024), there are still significant disciplinary differences in 2023 when we consider researchers' investment in the various platforms we studied, with researchers in Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) being less invested overall than their colleagues in Sciences, Technology, and Medicine (STM);-Exposing researchers to these different tools, via the various sites they are obliged to use or via the training courses they are offered, seems to be a decisive factor in their take-up;-In the case of ORCID more specifically, exploring the content of researchers' ORCID profiles using the public ORCID APIs also revealed major disciplinary differences between HSS and STM researchers, in terms of the dynamics of investment in ORCID profiles, their updating and the completion of the various fields making up ORCID profiles.