 Good, okay, so I'm going to describe what we've been doing with all kids at Oxford. It's been quite a long project so far, I suppose, to get us going. First of all, a little bit of context about the university. There is a great challenge of managing the research outputs at Oxford because it's quite a large university of over 5,000 research active staff. We've got over 5,000 research students, so it's a research-intensive university. We're not entirely sure exactly the number of articles that are produced each year. We reckon somewhere in the region of 16,000. Coupled with this, the institution is highly devolved, so a lot of decision making is devolved to the academic divisions and departments rather than being a top-down structure. Now the relevance to ORCID is that we had a person identifiers group because the problem across the university of identifying individuals was becoming quite critical. And we felt that we had to pull people together from different units around the university to try and resolve some of these problems with using the initiatives that are ongoing, ORCID being one of them. So this group was pulled together. It was led by the Bodleian and we had representatives from all the relevant groups around the university, including student administration and legal services. And we decided that ORCID is probably our first action because it was coming onto the global scene quite significantly at the point that the group was set up. Seemed a bit like a quick win. So we put a proposal to one of the university subcommittees, the Research Information Management Subcommittee, that we should start moving with ORCID at the university. That is a committee that's chaired by the Pro Vice Chancellor for Research and includes some academic representatives as well. So it was important to get that by in. And Research Services was one of our key stakeholders in the work that we were doing. It was decided at that point that our approach should be very lightweight. The reason being that the control and ownership of personal information we felt very strongly was should remain with the academics, again sort of mirroring this devolved model that we have at Oxford. We were also advised by legal services that we should involve as little personal information as possible with any connections that we were making. And one of our other considerations when going forward with ORCIDs was the value proposition for authors, basically the what's in it for me. And this is the model that we came up with, extremely lightweight. What we wanted to do was we wanted to link people's Oxford account with ORCID. And so we created a model where the user can log into their personal account using single sign-on at the Oxford end and they can either request a new ORCID or link an existing ORCID. And all the information that would be sent to ORCID was their name and their email and their affiliation and that was it. That would be picked up at the ORCID end where the person can then confirm that they want to associate their ORCID with their Oxford account and that is then sent back to Oxford where the connection is made back in our core user directory or COD. Very simple, very lightweight and we felt that would be more acceptable than trying to go heavy-handed into this and gaining control of people's ORCID accounts. So that was the plan and we felt quite happy with that and it meant that the author retained all the control. We were not going to go creating accounts on behalf of all our authors, it was up to the author to actually initiate this. And the timing was perfect because just at the time that we were getting going with this, the JISC, which is a major funding body in the UK for such matters and ARMA, which is the Association of Research Managers and Administrators who were scratching their heads about personal identifiers, they came up with a little project and were offering a bit of money for a number of institutions to pilot ORCIDs to get it going in the UK. There are short projects, so just a matter of months and Oxford was fortunate enough to be successful in our application for funding. The intention at this point, because we felt we were moving quite quickly with ORCIDs, was to focus on the soft areas of the implementation, so the rollout, the promotion and the publicity. In fact, what happened was we got quite, I won't say bogged down, it's perhaps too strong a term, but we got quite engrossed in examining what we called the triangulation of ORCIDs because Oxford is a symplectic user and there are implications for connecting ORCIDs from our symplectic instance as well. I'll come on to that a bit more later. One of the main outcomes of the JISC ARMA ORCID pilot projects was sharing experiences with other UK institutions who were also trying to do the same thing at the same time. One of the major outcomes of the whole project, which again I'll talk about a little bit later, is the JISC Consortial Agreement with ORCID for the UK. This is what took up an awful lot of time for us at Oxford. We wanted to link ORCIDs to our CUD, core user directory as I mentioned, but we also are symplectic users and there's a possibility to link your symplectic account with ORCID and we decided that we wanted to make it as simple as possible for our users and for them only to have to link once. We were looking at ways where people could link either via the CUD or symplectic and the connection would be made with both systems. At that point, not every member of the university was a symplectic user. If we made the link via symplectic, it meant that we would miss out half of Oxford's academics. If we went via the CUD, then people who had a symplectic account wouldn't be connected with ORCID. This is why we were trying to get this one-stop link there. We came up with a number of options. First one was the trivial option. I'm not going to go through these in great detail, but just to show the complexity of what we were looking at. The first one was the trivial option where we just linked the CUD to ORCID and the second one was where we separately linked the CUD to ORCID and symplectic to ORCID. We felt that option would be confusing to academics having to link twice. Then the second option is the Oxford pages were master or elements became master. Finally, we had these two options, full synchronization and single callback. I'm not going to go into all the gory detail of that, but the outcome of all this investigation was that we decided to go for the very first option, the simple link. The reason that we did this at the time was we had standard membership of ORCID and to get two separate links to ORCID we were going to have to increase to premium membership, which was a significant jump in the cost to the university and the university at that point was not prepared to pay the extra cost. Also, we were thinking about the confusion to our academics having to make two links. We felt that if they linked their symplectic to ORCID, they then would be under the impression that they had linked themselves to Oxford and would then question, why do I have to do this twice? We decided to take the easy route and the technology, the link between Oxford and the Cod was set up and was working fine. We were very pleased to be able to do that. At the end of the JISC armor project, we were really pleased to hear that ORCID was talking with JISC about a consortial agreement for the UK because that in one fell swoop resolved the cost problem if we wanted to set up more than one link with ORCID and we knew that the university would be happy with the current membership that we were paying. All of this had to fit in with a parallel project that we're doing, a big open access service design project. So at the same time that we were considering all the links to ORCID, we've been thinking about how we're going to design a whole one-stop shop service to cover open access at the university. The driver for this, as some of you may have heard, is that the research excellence framework, the new version of the research assessment exercise in the UK was mooting that it might want ORCIDs for submissions to the next breath. So this is where the overlap came and we're having to think about the service that we offer to academics to try and simplify their submissions. What they have to do in order to be compliant with the next breath. So this all came nicely together. So the JISC national consortium which was only announced a couple of weeks ago, well less than that perhaps 23rd of June, is fantastic for the UK because certainly for the University of Oxford we now have, we'll be getting premium membership of ORCID at the same price pretty well that we were paying for standard membership and this is great because it opens up the possibilities there of dual links should we want to take them up and it's very likely that we will at some point in the future. For the moment we've just got the one link from the Cod to ORCID. So progress so far, we've got the JISC consortium agreement and Oxford has already signed up for that. The technical development for linking Oxford ORCIDs via the Cod to ORCID is all set up and working which is great. We have produced publicity materials and some guidelines for authors so instructions which are ready to roll there and we're just starting our training programs for library staff and beginning to roll out further to academics. The Oxford ORCID link was released only in May so it's all pretty new for us still and the advocacy and communication strategy is being planned so we've got a few early adopters I think we've got about 130 odd links at the moment so it's tiny but we want to make sure that people understand what they need to do, why they need to do it and basically why they should link their ORCID with Oxford rather than going just getting an ORCID. This is the what's in it for me question. So I think generally why authors should have an ORCID is beginning to gain traction because people are becoming a little bit more aware of it via their publishers when they're submitting a journal article and so on and I think they're beginning to learn that their friends have got an ORCID so that they they want to go and get one as well so the the idea of it you know helping to distinguish them from other people with the same name to get credit for their work and that is getting going. I can't say it's common knowledge yet but it is getting going. I think we've still got work to do there to help people understand what ORCIDs are and what they're for particularly issues like you know it's not a password it is very much something which should be publicised and made public and the benefits to authors for having their own ORCID. As I say I think it will become a much more common place and people have heard of them very soon. I know that OUP Oxford University Press has included ORCIDs in their submission system so people will begin to see it around a lot more. However why they should link it to Oxford at the moment is a difficult one to sell. We know the benefits within the libraries and information systems we can see the future benefits here for sort of you know making life easier for all of us in people not having to enter information twice being able to uniquely identify people in different systems and so on but that sort of thing is not going to benefit our authors tomorrow. We've got a lot of work to do before that will actually become a reality but we do want to get people going as soon as possible creating those links so we can then build the reality. It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation I think. We've got to think carefully about how we push this out so that we can start that ball rolling and get that sort of nudge effect where everybody else is doing it so everybody wants to join in. I think one one tack might be to get people new people as they join the university and new researchers and sort of take it from there. We're also looking at working with some early adopters within our pilot departments who were part of the open access pilot that we've just finished and we're beginning to roll out so that's a cohort of people that we could target. One critical driver that has come on stream just in the last month is that the welcome trust a significant funder will be requiring oxfords and orchids on grant applications from the first of August this year so actually we've got quite a job to do over the next month to make sure that all people who are going to be applying for welcome trust funding in a month's time have an orchid and know what it is and why they need it and are aware of how they can link it to Oxford so that's our first priority. As far as the next ref goes at the moment it's not stated that it will be a requirement for the next ref but were hefkey to require all submission needs an orchid for all the applicants there then that will be a huge driver for the UK. Now as I say it's not a requirement yet but this is the sort of thing that we can float to academics to say you know it may be a requirement and this is the level that the discussions are at and so you know it's a good idea to get an orchid and link it to Oxford. Now we've still got a lot of work to do although we've got that link there we still have some requirements there one thing which we're using as one of our selling points to authors is that on their orchid account if they link their oxford account to their orchid account their affiliation to Oxford displays on their orchid account and it's verified there because otherwise if you manually put in your affiliation you could in theory type in anything so you get that nice verification which appears on your orchid account we would like it to appear a little bit more prominently on their orchid account but that's you know that's something which we can talk about in the future with the orchid people who've been hugely helpful I should say and so that's that's our unique selling point to authors at the moment which isn't much but I think it's important to some of our authors. Our requirements still we're thinking about the symplectic triangulation and we're considering now that we've got premium membership having those two separate links to orchid what we need to do is clarify to authors that they are separate links and they need to make both of them so that's something which we may do in the in the near future we will be creating orchid symplectic accounts for all members of the university before too long we think because of the open access service design outcomes we need to think very carefully about how we're going to use orchids within the open access program and research data management activities there is a lot going on at the moment and we need to consider how we would integrate orchids into all of those activities so this is where we are at this precise moment I took a paper about orchid integration to the renamed subcommittee I mentioned before which is now the research information management and technology subcommittee and these were the questions that I asked of that committee first of all just to note the status quo of where we've got to and to endorse a plan of action so basically to approve that we would concentrate to begin with on the Wellcome Trust applicants which is a bit of a no-brainer we've got to do it that they were happy with our current communications activities that we are undertaking that we need to draft an orchid at Oxford strategy we need to know where we're going with this because even though we've got that connection it's a question of well what do we do now and then we want to scope further orchid integration and the outcome of that have a roadmap for implementation so we want to run this as a mini project a sort of fast and furious project in the autumn where we will engage a number of staff not new staff but current staff working in this area to work on questions such as how do we integrate orchid with our institutional repository what are the options for saving orchids underneath the repository will we include orchids for non-oxford authors within our repository if we do how do we do that the REOX protocol what are the requirements for that and how do we comply with that for data exchange things like symplectic for importing orchids from the CUD and orchid into symplectic how do we do it we also need to look at other factors such as HEASER the higher education statistics agency which the university has has a requirement to deliver a return every year on statistics for the university which are then built into a UK picture they have already included orchids in their list of data fields I don't think they're mandatory yet but chances are that they will be at some point as I've already mentioned the HEFQ requirements that's something which we need to take into account and the research councils UK have a system called research fish for reporting outcomes from research projects and orchids have been included in there again I don't think they're mandatory at the moment but we need to be prepared in case these external bodies decide that orchids should be mandatory so we want to put together a scoping project to cover all of these questions and to provide answers for those questions so that then we can have a clear roadmap as to what we're doing across the university to integrate orchids not just with the institutional repository but across the piece and that's a quick canter through what we're doing at Oxford and where we've got to it doesn't answer all the questions but hopefully that will then give some room for discussion now so I'll hand over back to Paul