Rita H. Pickler, PhD, RN, FAAN
Writer’s Camp Counselor
Authors and researchers need persistent identifiers, but others do, too.
An Open Researcher and Contributor identification number (ORCiD) increasingly is required for authors submitting papers to scientific journals. ORCiD is a global, not-for-profit organization and an ORCiD is a unique, persistent identifier available free of charge to researchers. ORCiDs are most useful for active researchers who want to keep track of their research papers and other products. Several years ago, I wrote a short commentary related to author name changes and suggested the use of an ORCiD to address challenges related to others finding your work when you have published under multiple names.1 Since then, the reasons for needing a persistent author identifier have expanded.
Importance of Persistent Author Identification
It is still that case that with an ORCiD, authors have available a record of their publications (and reviews), a set of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), and the services and support of numerous organizations and institutions. The iD provides a unique, persistent identifier for your research papers, similar to how a digital object identifier (DOI) works for publications. An ORCiD makes it easy to let people know who an author is and what their affiliations are. More information about ORCiD and information about how to obtain an iD can be found at the ORCid website. https://info.orcid.org/
What has changed is that now over 90 publishers and journals require that at the least the corresponding author have an ORCiD; only a few journals continue to make it optional. Many journals, including the one I edit, Nursing Research, require ORCiDs for all authors. Adding to the impetus to obtain an ORCiD, some funders, including the National Institutes of Health, require an ORCiD for all persons submitting grant applications. Moreover, many organizations and institutions, including universities, either require or strongly encourage faculty and others engaged in research to set up an ORCiD. At the Ohio State University where I hold a faculty appointment, I am able to link my ORCiD with information about my work in a painless and seamless manner.
Researcher Support for ORCiD Use
There is strong support for the adoption of ORCiD by publishers, professional societies, and the academic community. In a 2015 survey, researchers reported that 72% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that ORCiD requirements would be beneficial for the research community compared with 21% neutral responses and only 7% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing.2
The bottom line is this: If you are a researcher and you intend, as you should, to publish the results of your research, you need an ORCiD. Moreover, as a researcher and a lead investigator, you have an obligation to your colleagues and co-authors to insist that they, too, obtain on ORCiD. Interestingly, despite the strong support for scientists to obtain and use an ORCiD, as an editor, I continue to receive “explanations” from corresponding authors about why various co-authors do not have and do not need an ORCiD. Typically, those ORCiD-less authors are research staff (coordinators, data collectors, lab technicians), students (undergraduate and graduate), and members of community advisory boards (CABs).
Non-Researcher Colleagues Also Need Persistent Identification
To all those authors attempting to persuade me that these individuals do not need an ORCID, I respond with two points. First, the publisher of Nursing Research (WoltersKluwer) requires an ORCiD for all authors on all papers published in the journal. I appreciate the publisher’s authoritative position on this matter; in essence the publisher has said that if you want to publish in this journal, you will make sure that all authors are identifiable. Second, however, and more importantly, I raise the point with the corresponding author about the value (or lack thereof) they are placing on particular members of their research team. After all, these colleagues (staff, students, community members) have been included as authors on a paper so they must have contributed in meaningful ways to the conduct of the research and the preparation of the manuscript; these requirements for authorship are clearly defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).3 I do not understand how a lead author would consider a permanent author identifier unnecessary or inappropriate for any co-authors.
I am particularly puzzled by authors who fail to establish author identification for members of their CAB. In a synthesis of best practices for establishing and maintaining a CAB, researchers noted that a key element of effective CAB processes is the fair and appropriate distribution of power and of recognition for contributions to the work.4 Many CABs function without payment to members, and thus, it is important to identify other ways to promote member retention, interest, and recognition. Other researchers report that CAB members can have legitimate concerns about power imbalance with scientists and lack of inclusion in the more tangible benefits of research, including publication credit.5 I contend that if CAB members are indeed considered valuable colleagues and research partners with whom we hope to work with over a long period of time and whose personal development we have interest in supporting, we should help them establish their own record of contributions to science.
Now, truthfully, not all CAB members may want to be part of research dissemination in the form of publication; there is no evidence that this has been studied. And indeed, if you asked many members of CABs what they hoped to gain from their participation, writing scientific papers is not likely to be high on their priority list. Most CABs members are rather more concerned that the research is responsive to community needs and that the community learns and benefits from the research. Nevertheless, nurse scientists have increasingly used CABs as part of their research on important health-related topics. Research has demonstrated that there are many variations in the appearance and function of these CABs as well as on the approaches used to promote equity within the partnerships.6 CABs and other community-academic partnerships are important to close the gap between research and practice in health care by actively engaging community stakeholders and leveraging firsthand the insights they bring to pressing issues.
In fact, they are so important, that I contend that the value of CABs and their members should be recognized through both authorship and credit for authorship in the form of a lasting record such as that provided by ORCiD. I have suggested to lead authors that they use some of their CAB meeting time to help all their CAB members sign up for an ORCiD. The same could be done during a lab or research team meeting to help those administering your surveys, running your assays, analyzing your data, and more, also acquire this potentially important marker of their scientific contributions.
Conclusion
Obtaining an ORCiD is easy to do. Moreover, the ORCiD is readily accessible for all who might want to know about authors, and so far as we know, the ORCiD is durable; one is all you need, forever. So indeed, authors, just as you need an ORCiD, those who work and write with you also need one. It is your responsibility to tell your colleagues about ORCiD and help them get one.
References
- Pickler RH. What’s in a name? Nurse Author & Editor. 2019; 29(4):1-7. doi:10.1111/j.1750-4910.2019.tb00051.x.
- Harris RB, Zepernick J. 5 questions and answers about ORCID iD: Distinguishing yourself as a researcher. Think Science. 2020. Accessed July 7, 2025. https://thinkscience.co.jp/en/articles/questions-and-answers-about-orcid
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. December 2021. Accessed July 7, 2025. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
- Newman S D, Andrews JO, Magwood GS, Jenkins C, Cox MJ, Williamson DC. Community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: a synthesis of best processes. Prev Chronic Dis. 2011;8(3):A70. Accessed May 22, 2025. https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2011/may/10_0045.htm
- Safo S, Cunningham C, Beckman A, Haughton L, Starrels JL. “A place at the table:” A qualitative analysis of community board members’ experiences with academic HIV/AIDS research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0181-8
- Dickson E, Magarati M, Boursaw B, Oetzel J, Devia C, Ortiz K, Wallerstein N. Characteristics and practices within research partnerships for health and social equity. Nurs Res. 2020;69:51–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000399
Author: Rita H. Pickler, ORCiD https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9299-5583
Reviewed and edited by: Leslie H. Nicoll
Copyright © 2025 Writer’s Camp and Rita H. Pickler, CC-BY-ND 4.0
Citation: Pickler RH. Why You, and They, Need an ORCiD. The Writer’s Camp Journal, 2025; 1(2):3. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15836207