Learned Publishing最新文献

{"title":"Scholarly Publications: Criteria, Types, and Recognition From the Researchers' Perspective","authors":"Christian Kaier,&nbsp;Lisa Schilhan,&nbsp;Karin Lackner,&nbsp;Hilmar Brohmer","doi":"10.1002/leap.2019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2019","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Based on a survey, this study investigates the perceptions of researchers in Austria concerning scholarly publications, exploring criteria, types, and emerging types of publication and their future recognition. The findings reveal that researchers value a diverse set of criteria, with content-related factors prioritised over formal ones. While traditional publication types remain dominant, novel forms, such as data publications and replication studies, are gaining recognition. Researchers (<i>n</i> = 616) express a desire for broader recognition of diverse types of work, particularly data publications, teaching materials, and software or code. The findings also exhibit the predominantly research-to-research focus of scholarly communication, with limited emphasis on science-to-public engagement. An analysis of career stages shows that pre-doctoral and post-doctoral researchers tend to be more open-minded than professors regarding the future recognition of some novel types of publication. There are evident differences between disciplines, highlighting the need for a nuanced, subject-specific approach to evaluation and documentation. Overall, the survey results call for greater consideration of novel publication types in research assessment and documentation. Accordingly, libraries should enhance their research support services to assist in the publication, documentation, and archiving of additional types of publication.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2019","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144751406","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Developing a Criteria Framework for Peer Review: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis","authors":"Yifei Li,&nbsp;Xiaoting Xu,&nbsp;Dongqing Lyu,&nbsp;Zhen Zhang,&nbsp;Juan Xie,&nbsp;Ying Cheng","doi":"10.1002/leap.2016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2016","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The review criteria that reviewers and editors use are crucial in the journal peer review process. However, the review criteria for manuscripts are scattered across various literature, and their different manifestations make things more complicated. In response, we conducted a critical interpretive synthesis to provide a systematic criteria framework with clear definitions for reviewing manuscripts. We extracted review criteria from 157 heterogeneous sources, including 33 research articles, 20 literature reviews, 20 editorials and 84 reviewer guidelines from journals or publishers. The analysis of the evidence followed a ‘bottom-up’ approach. Five categories emerged (i.e., value to journal, effective use of literature, rigorousness, clarity and compliance) involving 12 components, 33 items and 79 entries. Drawing on the results, we developed a four-level criteria framework (i.e., categories-components-items-entries) for manuscript peer review. Additionally, we compared the content of review criteria across diverse fields. The findings provide a theoretical framework for standardised and systemised review criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2016","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144331929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Assessing the Societal Impact of Academic Research With Artificial Intelligence (AI): A Scoping Review of Business School Scholarship as a ‘Force for Good’","authors":"David Steingard,&nbsp;Kathleen Rodenburg","doi":"10.1002/leap.2010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2010","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study addresses critical questions about how current evaluative frameworks for academic research can effectively translate scholarly findings into practical applications and policies to tackle societal ‘grand challenges’. This scoping review analysis was conducted using bibliometric methods and AI tools. Articles were drawn from a wide range of disciplines, with particular emphasis on the business and management fields, focusing on the burgeoning scholarship area of ‘business as a force for good’. The novel integration of generative AI research approaches underscores the transformative potential of AI-human collaboration in academic research. Metadata from 4051 articles were examined in the scoping review, with only 370 articles (9.1%) explicitly identified as relevant to societal impact. This finding reveals a substantial and concerning gap in research addressing the urgent social and environmental issues of our time. To address this gap, the study identifies six meta-themes related to enhancing the societal impact of research: business applications; faculty publication pressure; societal impact focus; sustainable development; university and scholarly rankings; and reference to responsible research frameworks. Key findings highlight critical misalignments between research outputs and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and a lack of practical business applications of research insights. The results emphasise the urgent need for academic institutions to expand evaluation criteria beyond traditional metrics to prioritise real-world impacts. Recommendations include developing holistic evaluation frameworks and incentivising research that addresses pressing societal challenges—shifting academia from a ‘scholar-to-scholar’ to a ‘scholar-to-society’ paradigm. The implications of this shift are applied to business-related scholarship and its potential to inspire meaningful societal impact through business practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2010","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144264539","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Early Career Researchers Open-Up on Citations in Respect to Reputation, Trust, Ethics, AI and Much More","authors":"David Nicholas,&nbsp;Abdullah Abrizah,&nbsp;David Clark,&nbsp;Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo,&nbsp;Jorge Revez,&nbsp;Eti Herman,&nbsp;Marzena Świgoń,&nbsp;Jie Xu,&nbsp;Anthony Watkinson","doi":"10.1002/leap.2015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2015","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper, part of the Harbingers project studying early career researchers (ECRs), focuses on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on scholarly communications (https://ciber-research.com/harbingers-3/index.html). It investigates citations and citing, its purpose, function and use, especially in respect to reputation, trust, publishing and AI. We also cover journal impact factors, H-index, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. All of this, regarding a research community, to whom citations have special reputational and career-advancing value. This interview-based study covers a convenience sample of 91 ECRs from all disciplines and half a dozen countries. Furthermore, this study has been conducted with minimal prompting about citations, so providing a fresh feel by using the voices of ECRs wherever possible. Findings include: (1) citations are all-pervasive, although cropping up mostly in the reputational and trust arenas; (2) citations remain a major force in determining what is read, where to publish and what to trust; (3) there are no signs their value is diminishing; if anything, the opposite is true; (4) AI has given a boost to their use—primarily as a validity check; (5) there are strong signs that altmetrics are being taken up. Note, this was a preliminary study working with a convenience sample attempting to inform a future study. Our findings should therefore be treated more as early observations.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2015","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144140369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Toward Science-Led Publishing","authors":"Damian Pattinson,&nbsp;George Currie","doi":"10.1002/leap.2012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2012","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;The majority of scholarly communication today depends on publishing. An industry with estimated profit margins of between 30% and 50% (Van Noorden &lt;span&gt;2013&lt;/span&gt;), scholarly publishing has long been on a trajectory of consolidation, with 2022 estimates giving the top five publishers control over 60% of the market (Crotty &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Through the medium of the journal, scholarly publishers play an integral role for scientific communities. On the one hand, journals need to provide value to their customers—authors (through APCs—article processing charges), or readers (through library subscriptions)—and on the other, they are incentivised to maximise profitability and to outcompete other journals. While the incentive structures at play for publishers are primarily commercial, all scholarly publishing has to exist in the same system, face similar considerations and play the same game by the same rules.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The interests of scholarly communication and publishing are not always compatible. What's good for publishing isn't necessarily good for science, and successful publishing strategies may be actively harmful to the scholarly record.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;\u0000 &lt;i&gt;Science-led publishing is an opportunity to realign the current processes and reward systems in publishing and research to first and foremost benefit the scientific endeavour. It demands faster, fairer and more transparent modes of science communication. It is not an unachievable ideal; it is a choice within our current reach.&lt;/i&gt;\u0000 &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Science-led publishing means two things. First, the needs of science communication dictate how publishing processes and models work, what options are available to researchers, and how researchers are incentivised—how success is measured—by funders and institutions. Second, it is not an end state. Science-led publishing must continually reevaluate itself so that it best serves the current needs of researchers and research within current social and technological boundaries.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;An example of this is how, despite technological advances, much of scholarly publishing still operates as it did in print. Where the print medium demanded works be final before they are shared, digital publishing allows works to be shared, reviewed and revised iteratively and publicly. This change could be relatively straightforward within our current technological limitations, and is already in place for some journals, yet much of the system exists in an inertia—why?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;\u0000 &lt;i&gt;Science-led publishing enables faster scientific communication and expedites sharing and refining ideas and approaches ahead of formal review. The preprint becomes the standard research article type using existing infrastructure that is free for authors and readers.&lt;/i&gt;\u0000 &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;\u0000 &lt;i&gt;Science-led publishing changes the relationship between authors, editors and reviewers to one of collaboration rather than control. Authors have more choice in how and when t","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143944851","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Black Market of Publications in Peru: Paper Mills and Authorship for Sale","authors":"Joel Alhuay-Quispe,&nbsp;Victoria Yance-Yupari","doi":"10.1002/leap.2014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2014","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;The credit for authorship is the most common and significant means of recognising contributions in academic collaborations due to its impact on funding acquisition, staff evaluation, and academic career progression (Hosseini et al. &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;). However, the individualistic construction of authorship is a concept stemming from a reconceptualisation of the creative process (Jaszi and Woodmansee &lt;span&gt;2014&lt;/span&gt;). In academia, the ‘publish or perish’ phenomenon has shifted the overarching perspective on research processes—from being primarily dedicated to advancing human scientific, social, and cultural knowledge—to viewing the contribution of articles merely as transactional assets. In actual fact, within a society dominated by a ‘paper culture’, research and publication processes have been undermined by unethical practices. In scientific authorship, there are common ways of misconduct such as multiple unjustified authorship, ghostwriting, gift authorship, guest authorship, authorship under pressure. Additionally, other ways of misconduct such as team/group/consortium authorship and ‘authorship for sale’ have emerged latterly (Alhuay-Quispe &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;; Chirico and Bramstedt &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;; Hosseini et al. &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Paper mills&lt;/i&gt; manufacture manuscripts that have never been written, where online enterprises sell authorship of the manuscripts and submit them to journals on behalf of the authors, often submitting to multiple journals simultaneously (Bricker-Anthony and Herzog &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;). On the other hand, part of fake and unethical publishers' business is related to the purchase and sale of scholarly articles (Sorooshian &lt;span&gt;2017&lt;/span&gt;). COPE and STM (&lt;span&gt;2022&lt;/span&gt;) call ‘paper mill’ a commercial enterprise; evidently, some of them are significant and highly professional, offering authorship in exchange &lt;i&gt;for a fee&lt;/i&gt;. A similar scientific authorship misconduct is ‘academic ghostwriting’ where they contract a writing service with plagiarism practices and significant alterations in authorship (Jung-Choi &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;). Guest and ghost authorship have been replaced by a business in which individuals can purchase authorship positions, and emerging companies create spurious articles or copy already-published ones; then they sell authorship of them (Smart &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;). Ghostwriting is a common unethical practice, specifically in biomedical journals, where a proliferation of industry-sponsored articles represents an important part of the pharmaceutical area (Yadav and Rawal &lt;span&gt;2018&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The proliferation of fake or manufactured papers is a problem for the world of academic research and publishing. It is estimated that 2% of submissions to scholarly journals across all disciplines come from paper mills, usually submitted by authors who have not previously published in an academic venue (Porter and McIntosh &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;). Furthermore, over 20% of the Retraction Watch datab","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2014","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143930479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Integrity and Misconduct, Where Does Artificial Intelligence Lead?","authors":"David Nicholas,&nbsp;Eti Herman,&nbsp;David Clark,&nbsp;Abdullah Abrizah,&nbsp;Jorge Revez,&nbsp;Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo,&nbsp;Marzena Świgoń,&nbsp;Jie Xu,&nbsp;Anthony Watkinson","doi":"10.1002/leap.2013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2013","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper, part of the third stage of the <i>Harbingers</i> project studying early career researchers (ECRs), focuses on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on scholarly communications. It concentrates on research integrity and misconduct, a ‘hot’ topic among the publishing community, in no small part due to the rise of AI. The interview-based study, supported by an extensive literature review, covers a convenience sample of 91 ECRs from all disciplines and half a dozen countries. It provides a new and fresh take on the subject, using the ‘voices’ of ECRs to describe their views and practices regarding integrity and misconduct. We show that ECRs are clearly aware of research misconduct and questionable practice with three-quarters saying so. A big indictment of the scholarly system, but, not surprising given a rising number of retractions and questionable journals. The main blame for this is levelled at the haste with which researchers publish and the volume of papers produced. ECRs also feel that things are likely to get worse with the advent of AI. They believe that they are aware of the problems and how to avoid the pitfalls but suspect that things are approaching a cliff-edge, which can only be avoided with strong policies and an overhaul of the reputational system.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2013","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143925975","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction to “Transformative Agreements, Publication Venues and Open Access Policies at the University of Milan”","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/leap.2011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2011","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Berni L., and F. Zucchini. 2024. “Transformative Agreements, Publication Venues and Open Access Policies at the University of Milan.” <i>Learned Publishing</i> 37, no. 4: e1627. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1627.</p><p>In the article referenced above, the data sharing statement was not included. The data sharing statement should read as follows:</p><p>The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Harvard Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/3T1G2U.</p><p>We apologise for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143909100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fraudulent Research Falsely Attributed to Credible Researchers—An Emerging Challenge for Journals?","authors":"Tove Godskesen","doi":"10.1002/leap.2009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2009","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;A recent incident highlights a potentially new form of research fraud involving articles falsely attributed to a group of legitimate researchers. Several researchers contacted us via ResearchGate with questions about a published article titled ‘Investigating the Effectiveness of Play Therapy on Reducing Despair, and Anxiety in Children with Cancer’ in &lt;i&gt;Clinical Cancer Investigation Journal&lt;/i&gt; (Höglund et al. &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;). Upon closer examination, we discovered that the article was published with our names (making up an active research group) listed as authors without our knowledge or consent and containing fabricated data.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This raises important questions: How could this happen, and is this a new form of research fraud? Traditionally, research fraud has included data fabrication, or fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and honorary authorships. However, this incident points to another type of fraud where research is published under legitimate author names without their knowledge or contribution. This practice of fabricating data for an entire research group without their involvement may indeed be a new phenomenon.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A review of the Retraction Watch Database for 2023–2024 found that out of 30 papers retracted for false/forged authorship, 16 had explanations. The main causes were fictitious authorship (8 cases) and unauthorised publications (2 cases), with other issues including unethical co-author charges, false ethics approval, data fabrication (5 cases), and complete identity fabrication (1 case). Kwee and Kwee (&lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;) found a 4.0% incidence of forged authorship in 192 retracted medical imaging papers from 1984 to 2021. Although none matched our exact experience, one similar case was noted (Orall &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;). Forged authorship and data fabrication pose new challenges to authorship integrity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Recent studies reveal a significant portion of scientists admit to engaging in research misconduct, including data fabrication and falsification. A 2021 survey among Dutch researchers revealed that approximately 8% confessed to falsifying or fabricating data between 2017 and 2020 (Singh &lt;span&gt;2021&lt;/span&gt;), and over 50% admitted to questionable research practices like selective reporting. More than 10% of medical and life-science researchers admitted to such fraud. A comprehensive study of over 4700 researchers from Denmark and other countries showed that 9 out of 10 used at least one questionable research practice, influenced by social acceptability (Schneider et al. &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Researchers analysed nearly 1 million papers published between 2020 and 2024, finding a steady increase in the use of generative AI in scientific papers, ranging from 6.3% to 17.5% depending on the topic (Liang et al. &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;). Retraction rates have quadrupled, rising from approximately 11 retractions per 100,000 papers in 2000 to nearly 45 per 100,000 by 2020 (Holly &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;; Freijedo-Farinas et al. &lt;s","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143900994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Knowledge and Use of the ORCID Author Identifier in France: A National Survey","authors":"Aline Bouchard,&nbsp;Christophe Boudry","doi":"10.1002/leap.2004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2004","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this article, we explore the uses and awareness of the ORCID identifier in the French national research community using a questionnaire survey. This questionnaire has been completed in full by 6125 researchers, amounting to approximately 3.2% of the French national population of researchers. We asked the respondents about their reasons for creating an ORCID identifier, how they had discovered ORCID, what the characteristics of their ORCID profile were (privacy, completion of the various sections, etc.) and how they used it (context, motivations and obstacles). We also asked them about their knowledge of the ORCID ecosystem. We found that researchers overall reported a concrete, pragmatic knowledge of the ORCID identifier. The political and strategic framework remains generally unclear, or is unfamiliar, whether in terms of the objectives or the general interest of this tool. Researchers often only perceive the most obvious functionalities in their daily work, such as having an online profile. The less immediate or less individual features, such as being able to distinguish themselves from other researchers, are therefore not as well known and used. Our results should help stakeholders in France and internationally to adapt their policies and to support researchers more efficiently in the use of the ORCID identifier.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143879808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}