Peer reviewing of manuscripts or grant proposals for publishers and funders is one of the professional activities that researchers are expected to conduct as part of their scholarly activities. This can be time-consuming and is a skilled and important activity. However, due to the nature of peer review (it is often anonymous), gaining credit for this activity has often been overlooked.
A new feature within ORCID will be the ability to add details of your peer reviewing activities to your ORCID profile. Several organisations are working with ORCID to integrate this function including publishers and research funders.
The new section on Peer Review will be appearing on ORCID profiles soon. Several organisations will be participating in the early roll-out. These include:
|Faculty of 1000||Peerage of Science|
|American Geophysical Union||Kudos|
|Politics and Religion Journal||Publons|
If you are providing peer reviews that are open and that are assigned a DOI (like those for F1000Research), the full details of your peer review will be linked to your ORCID profile.
For other organisations using closed peer review models, the entry in your ORCID profile may just give the name of the journal or the funding organisation that you have reviewed for.
Below are some examples of what kind of entries might appear soon in the Peer Review section of an ORCID profile.
Reviewing activity for a Journal (in this case, the fictitious Journal of Psychoceramics - cracked pots!)
In this case, the record shows numerous peer review activities including credit for reviewing for a journal and for a research organisation. The review activity for Nature Neuroscience gives the role of the researcher - Editor or Reviewer - and also includes a link to the journal article for which the review was performed.
For a journal where peer review is fully open (the identity of the reviewer is known and the review is published), such as F1000Research, the ORCID record will be able to link directly to the peer review provided by the researcher.
An ORCID Working Group has suggested the following data elements are important to record and describe peer review activity:
Fields that include a person identifier to describe the person who performed the review
What kind of review was it and does it have an identifier (such as a DOI)
Fields to descripbe the subject of the review - for example, the paper, grant or other item. If the peer review is blind, this information can be omitted
Fields that include an identifier for the organisation that requested the peer review activity. Thsi could be a publisher, association or a funder.
More information is available from ORCID.