CRediTRichard Wynne

https://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwynne

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9217-0407

Journalso Forum for authors and readers to share

information

o Research “Evaluation Machines”

Following the moneyo Forum for authors and readers to share

informationAuthors (and their proxies – libraries) journal spending: $10

Billion

o Research “Evaluation Machines”

Funders research spending: $1.6 Trillion

“4th edition of the STM report on scholarly publishing”http://www.stm-assoc.org/

2015_02_20_STM_Report_2015.pdf

The journal as research “evaluation

machine”

Journals and journal articles

Citations

Measures of “impact”

$ Funding review boards and tenure committees $

Altmetrics

The “machine is broken” narrative:

Goal displacementFalse precision

Simply not a good measure

Funders believe they have been flying blind

So, what do funders want?

o More granular and accurate datao Broader access to research resultso Process improvementso Big data

More granular/accurate data

o Who did the research (authors and co-authors)?

o What did they do?

o Which institution are they from?

o Who funded the research?

3,500+ journals using ORCID Single-Sign-On!

CRediT Taxonomy

http://credit.casrai.org/

LeadEqualSupporting

What do Authors want from the submission process?

o Speedo Convenienceo No form fillingo No hassle

What do Funders and Institutions want from the submission process?

o Accountabilityo Structured datao Accurate datao Granular data

Who’s in the middle?Funders: structured, Authors: Quick, convenient,Accurate, granular data no hassle submission

The Journal!

Journal peer review system

Capturing Data

How to ingest a manuscript?

Summaryo $1.6 trillion spend on research fundingo Funders want better “evaluation machines”o This is resulting in operational changes in

peer reviewo In anticipation of these trends journals need

to be equipped with appropriate workflow capabilities

CRediThttps://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwynne

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9217-0407