 Orchid for Funders webinar. My name is Natasha Simons and I'm a senior data management specialist with the Australian National Data Service, or ANDS for short. And I'd like to introduce my co-organiser for this webinar, Nibbiko Mieri, who is the regional director of Orchid in the Asia Pacific, and she is based in Tokyo. So today's webinar looks at the role that Orchid can and does play for research funders. And this webinar is designed to connect research funders who are integrating Orchid identifiers or who are looking to do so. We have in attendance research funders from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada and the USA. We have three excellent speakers at this webinar today. Josh Brown, who's the director of partnerships for Orchid. Sarah Townsend, who's the senior advisor in the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, known as MBIE in New Zealand. And Sarah was formerly the research funding analyst for the Research Council's UK Executive Directorate. And Dr Richard Ikeda, who's director of Office of Research Information Systems and Research Condition and Disease Categorisation in the National Institutes of Health USA, who's coming to us from Washington or just outside of Washington, DC. And after each speaker, we'll look to see if there are any questions. And then at the end of all the talks, we will have some open mic time for everyone to have a say about anything you wish to discuss. I would just like to hand over to our first speaker, Josh Brown, who's director of partnerships at Orchid. Thanks everyone for joining us tonight. As Natasha said, I'm Josh Brown. I'm Orchid's director of partnerships. Before that, I worked for Orchid, heading up their membership outreach and support in Europe. And I work in a variety of projects with partners in Europe. So it's a pleasure to be here today and to talk a little bit about the work that we have been doing with funders. I'm not sure what everybody's familiarity is with Orchid. So I'm just going to start with a few introductory slides. Forgive me if you've seen these or something similar before, but it's just good to make sure that we're all at the same level of understanding as we begin. So what is Orchid? We'll start with the basics. Orchid, an Orchid idea is an identifier for researchers. It's a unique identifier that complements their name. It can be attached to their research outputs, to their funding, to a lot of their activities. And it helps us to disambiguate people. Sometimes there are circumstances where a person's name may change in their life. The way their name is recorded may change. There may be accents or changes of language that mean that the name is transliterated. And this can lead to confusion. This doesn't even take account of the circumstances where researchers may share a name. Orchid is a registry where the identifiers and identifying information about researchers is recorded and is made publicly available. We also provide a set of standard procedures for connecting researchers. This means that funders, publishers, universities and others can build Orchid IDs into their workflows and actually connect researchers to their work while the work is being done. We can do this because we work with a global community of research practitioners, investigators, policymakers, technicians and others to build connectors to integrate Orchid IDs into workflows and to put identifiers at the fingertips of people who are performing research and analyzing it. We managed to gather this kind of level of collaboration and community because we are an open organization, we are international scale, and we are built on collaboration and cooperation. We are united by our vision, which is as expressed here as a world where all who participate in research, scholarship and innovation are uniquely identified and connected to their contributions and affiliations. So that's their contributions might be data visualization, it might be writing a journal article or a monograph or editing a book. Their affiliations could be education where you did your PhD, or they could be where you're employed or have been employed in the past. This is crucial that we connect this across time. So throughout the researcher's career, across disciplines because researchers into disciplinary people may change disciplines through their career. And the whole research enterprise is valuable. And of course, borders because research is international. As you can see, so is our community. We have more than 3.1 million researchers who have registered for an Orchid Identifier. We have more than 620 members from 40 countries from all around the world, including many national consortia, including the national consortia in Australia and the Netherlands. And in the UK, a number of other countries in Europe. And we're currently exploring the launch of a number of further national national consortia. So this slide will change in the very near future. And together, these organizations have produced more than 250 integrations. Now, some of these are in local systems that are used at one institution. Some of them are in platforms or services that are used by hundreds, or in some cases, thousands of organizations. So the reach of these integrations is absolutely enormous. As you can see, the bulk of our integrations come from research institutions, which is where most of the research takes place. And our second largest group are publishers. Funders make up 5% of our integrations. But again, I would imagine that a lot of the researchers from the 62% of our integrations from research institutions will be interacting with funder systems at one time or another, or we would hope anyway. One thing that's very interesting about the scope of these is that actually they're becoming required for use in some systems. Here you see an example of the mandate that was introduced just over a year ago, where a number of publishers said that they would start requiring orchid IDs from corresponding authors for every article they published in their journals. Now, this number has continued to grow in the last year. And so far, it has been actually quite a popular innovation, as this insect quote from Brooks Hansen from the AGU says, out of more than 10,000 authors who have used this, one has complained about this new requirement. And the value of this is not just that the publishers were asking or demanding orchid IDs, it's actually that they have committed to a minimum level of integration. It means that they're not just collecting the orchid identifiers, they are keeping that orchid identifier connected to the manuscript through the whole publication process. They're putting it in the PDF, they're putting it in the web page, and they're making it available publicly in a machine readable and human readable way when the article is published. Now, the value of that is that it enables new workflows when you know that idea is going to be there. One example of this is what we call the orchid also updates. The workflow for this is very simple. The author uses their ID when they submit a manuscript. The publisher ensures that the orchid ID is there in the metadata and in the file and on the web page. When they mean to DOI, a digital object identifier for that article when it's published, Crossref, the service that many publishers used to do this, will detect the orchid identifier, and then they will push the public, the citation information for the new publication, straight into the author's orchid record. The value of that is it means that it can go to any system that is looking at the orchid record or is connected to it. That might be the institutional repository of the author's home institution. It might be a funded reporting system. The value of this is that it means that any of these systems that are connected receive an automatic update and the citation for that publication. It means researchers don't have to go and tell you about that publication, and it means that everywhere that that citation travels, that ID is linked to it, so attribution becomes more accurate, and bibliometric statistics, citations, and other analytics become more accurate. One of the reasons that we think funders care about orchid IDs is that there are a number of ways that they can be used to improve the efficiency of research processes and to reduce the burden on researchers of research administration and organization. For example, you can stream on the application process by pulling a list of publications or employment information from a researcher's orchid record. Once they sign in and then you can ask for permission to add information to their record and to pull information from their record. If you push that information to the record, you can ensure the accurate citation of a grant award. So you can put your organization name, you can put any information about the funding program or grant numbers in there. Once that's in the orchid record, it's then available to others to use, including the researchers home institution. You can have real time reporting by using our notification API. And this is one thing that we think is really, really valuable is you can recognize your reviewers too. The workflow for recognizing reviewers is very similar. You may recognize the flow here is very similar to the auto update slide. But it's really, we think it's really valuable because reviewers are performing a valuable task in ensuring the health of their discipline. It's a voluntary contribution in many cases. There is prestige attached to it. But making sure that these researchers get recognition for their contribution to the health of their discipline is vital. And this is one way to do it. It's very simple, the same way. A researcher comes to review grant applications, they provide their orchid ID by signing in and sending it via our API. So there were no mistakes. No one's typing in the ID or copying and pasting it. The funder can then embed the reviewers orchid ID in the review, and then use the orchid ID number and that API connection that's been created when the researcher signs in to push a review acknowledgement to the reviewers orchid record. From there it can flow to institutional systems. And also maybe other funders can see that this researcher has worked for your funding organisation when they apply for funds later. Other funders who are very quick to recognise this include the Wellcome Trust in the UK. This quote from Jonathan Cram I think demonstrates the perceived value, the potential of these unique identifiers for people. Which is that they can enable these forms of real time understanding of analytics and appreciation of scientific research efforts, collaborations, careers and contributions that up till now have been well in many cases have been impossible to collect. Many funders around the world are interacting with orchid IDs. Some are requiring them for their grantees. I think some of the early ones were the FCT in Portugal autism speaks in the USA who introduced their policies in 2014. We've had a number of health funders who moved ahead with those in 2015 and more funders around the world have come on board during 2016. I think it's really crucial that these IDs are not just asked for, they are used and using them in the grant management systems, using them for downstream reporting is a really, really valuable way of helping researchers and ensuring that your systems are talking efficiently to other systems. I won't go into much detail about this, but I think one of the ways that many research funders have joined is as part of these national consortium I mentioned earlier. One of the benefits of this is that the cost comes down from an individual organisation. The cost of membership is higher. Where you get an economy of scale when we have a consortium membership. It helps to reduce the price and it helps to demonstrate for funders that they are part of the community in that consortium and they get local support, show common cause with their community and we find that it actually means that the local institutions are more likely to choose to interact with orchid IDs coming between the systems when they're part of a common organisation working together defining how they would like to use orchid IDs. Getting started with using orchid IDs is very simple. If you have a grant management system, you can integrate it, set up a webinar with our talk team, decide how and when you would like to use orchid IDs. Is it during applications? Is it for reviewers? Can you pull information from the orchid record to make it more efficient? Can you collect commissions to push information into the orchid record? If you do that, then you can push awards, you can push reviews and you can continue to access the research orchid record and to pull updates from that. Again, making research reporting that much easier for your researchers. Technically, it's actually pretty simple. We use two standards, web technologies, OAuth for authentication and REST for API calls. These are well known to your developers will be familiar with these and comfortable with using integrating a field for an identifier and the source of that information to your database, again, is not a difficult task. But I think the second point here socially, it is absolutely vital that researchers are engaged in the process. So be prepared to communicate. I think that's much more challenging than the technical implementation. We do provide a lot of support both for the technical aspects of this. Using our APIs, we have detailed and open documentation. But we also provide a lot of support in communicating with researchers, examples where other funders have engaged with their researchers, case studies of what they have done. So if you have any questions, going to members.org is a great way to start looking for answers. And of course, our support team are always available. We also launched a program called collect and connect. This is to make sure that researchers always have a familiar experience when they encounter an orchid. They understand how it's being used. And it's very easy for integrators, whatever the system they are using, to communicate to researchers why they're using orchid IDs and how they're using orchid IDs. We think this familiarity and this consistent experience will really help researchers to understand and encourage them to engage with this initiative. But crucially, this is my last slide, but I just want to finish on a few points. And I think that don't underestimate the power that funders have to drive good practice to change behavior for the better, to lead by example by increasing the efficiency of research communication and the communication between systems and between people. To share that data by making funding and grant award information publicly available on an open system, that data is available for reuse. By pulling data in from open community systems like orchid, reusing that data, it adds efficiency. It means the data is cleaner because it's not being typed in. And I think, and this goes back to the point I made a few slides ago about communication, tell the community what data you need them to be provided to you and listen to their needs so that you can start pushing information out. That way it's a two-way flow, it's seen as a partnership and it helps to cement that good practice and the benefits of unique identifiers for researchers across the whole research ecosystem. Thanks very much, Josh, for that excellent overview of orchid and how funders can make best use of its functionality. There are no questions in the question pod for the moment. So I think we might move on to our next speaker, who is Sarah Townsend from MBIE in New Zealand. As Matash already said, I'm currently at MBIE in New Zealand, which is quite convenient for this webinar. As most of my UK colleagues are probably asleep right now. But I did formally work for Research Council's UK and finished there in December. I'm going to talk to you a bit about our UK's integration with orchid, what we did, how we did it, and I'll outline some of the challenges that we faced along the way. So yeah, I'm going to start off with the timeline of how we got to where we are now. So a key date for us was June 2015, and this is when the UK Orchid Consortium was launched by JISC in the UK. So there have been lots of discussions prior to this time, but this was a good moment to really get things moving. And the UK Orchid Consortium has offered reduced membership fees for universities in the UK, but our UK also made use of that and became a member under that consortium. So shortly after that point in December 2015, our UK finally became a member of orchid after having talked about it for quite some time. And that was important because obviously it gave us access to the member API and allowed us to actually get the work done to integrate orchid with our grant system, which is called JISC, which stands for the Joint Electronics Submission System. So we finally got that integration live in May 2015, and so the JISC system is used by the vast majority of applicants applying to the Research Councils for Funding. So most of our researchers will come through that platform. The important thing to note there is that we actually integrated orchid at the accounts upstage, and the reason why that was important, because it actually means that for one, you don't have to wait until someone's coming to apply for a research grant. They can actually log in at any point and add and connect their orchid ID to their JISC account. But it also means that then that information will proliferate across any activity that those researchers have had in our system. So whether they've been reviewers for us, whether they've applied to us in the past, that's all captured with that one integration. And then to take that a step further, in October 2015, we started publishing orchid IDs in the RCUK Gateway to Research. So the Gateway to Research is a public website accessible to anyone. You can log on there and you can see information about anything that the Research Councils have funded. So by pushing the orchid IDs out through GTR, we're now connecting that information against all of the grant details that are out there publicly already. And that's for awards against researchers on a number of roles. So if they're a co-investigator or a fellow training grant holder, student or supervisor, that all displays in the Gateway to Research. And I'll show you a slide later on actually so you can see that how that looks in our system. So this should make our funded researchers active. It's much easier to discover, we hope. So this is actually how the integration with our grant system looks. So at the top level there, you've got Gehr's requesting permission from the user for the following scopes. And whilst we're only collecting the authenticated orchid ID at this point, we do also collect the permission tokens for pushing and pulling data as well because the plan and obviously the ambition is that later down the line we will build more workflows to be able to actually pull data in and to push orchid records. So it made sense to us to collect that all in one go and we felt that our users would be more accepting of that than having to go back out to them once we've developed further workflows. So as you can see that then means that within the grant system we hold the actual orchid ID itself and the authentication code for those requested scopes above. That then gets pushed out to our publicly facing website through our reporting tools. So that's where we are now. This next slide shows kind of where we want to be in the future. So obviously a key thing for us in next steps is actually pushing authenticated grant information to our users orchid records. And we'll go in when I talk a bit more about the challenges we have faced quite a few challenges in the RIT infrastructure is quite out of date. So it's not as smooth the road as we would like to be able to do that push of information. So at the moment it's something we very much want to do but we're still trying to work out exactly how to do that. The other slight complication is that we have is between GIS and GTR. We do do some manipulation with the data so there may be some records that we need to keep confidential. So we do want to make sure that anything that is displayed within the orchid registry reflects what we already have publicly on our gateway to research site. We did quite a lot of communications to promote our integration with orchid. As you can see this is a page on the RCK website and there's links there to a number of blog posts that we wrote at the time. So this was just to really warm both the researchers and the research organizations up so this was coming and allow them to have a bit of lead in time to prepare for that going live. And one of the good things that we did within those communications was try and get a researcher's view of actually what they saw the benefits of orchid ID to be. And this has kind of been a theme through all of our UK's approach to integrating with orchid is about demonstrating those benefits to researchers as well as obviously we know as funders we will take a lot of benefit from orchid in the long term. We really want to show that this was a researcher led initiative and I think this case study helped to illustrate that and I think more case studies like this would be really useful. So here's just a few figures so in terms of research councils we put out about three billion in research funding each year and that's across all of the academic disciplines from the arts and humanities through to medical, biological, environmental, social. We handle about 7,000 applications per year across those disciplines and that results in about 2,500 research awards being granted. So then looking at our orchid integration we already have 11,620 orchid IDs connected to contacts in our grant system. So that represents orchid IDs on about 20% of all of our data held in that system and about 4% of all funded awards because obviously we have orchid IDs against unfunded awards and also against reviewers in any other activity that takes place within that system. So then looking at how that's represented in the gateway to research we have 2,430 people with an orchid ID published in the gateway to research and this means that an orchid ID is actually associated with 7,130 projects in GTR and around over 56,000 research outcomes so I think the numbers that we're seeing are quite positive. So this is just to give you a feel for how that actually looks in the gateway to research. So as you see we've got some information about a researcher here and you'll see their orchid ID displayed on the screen alongside their name and it's important that that's a hyperlink as well so that would actually take you, anyone on the website, straight to this person's orchid record on the orchid website. It's important to have that linked through. So this is another screen from the gateway to research and by holding the orchid ID at the person account level in our system we're able to connect that person to all the interactions they've had with the research councils. So this also means that when their orchid ID is published in the gateway to research we get a public picture of all the funding they've received including legacy data. So in this example I use Professor Donison's orchid ID to search the GTR database and these results show me that he's had a very active career going right back to 2006. He's been involved with 39 projects from three different funders, three different research councils, 17 times as a principal investigator, 15 times as a co-investigator and seven times as a training grant holder. He's associated with 345 outcomes as a result of those awards and this is all information that I'm able to drill down more into by clicking on the links in GTR if I want to find out more. So this all starts to build a picture of a person's research career and their connections to other people involved with those awards and research outcomes that have been delivered from those grants. This information is all publicly available and can also be exported through CSB for further analysis. I wanted to give you some information about the types of people that are connecting their orchid ID with our grant system. I'll talk a bit more about mandate versus no mandate later on but the approach that research councils have taken is to widely encourage the uptake of orchids at this stage rather than make it a mandatory requirement so therefore it's quite important well quite useful to look at actually who is chosen to connect their orchid ID with our system. So looking at this slide we can see the largest proportion of role types with an orchid ID are current principal investigators which is perhaps not surprising given that they make up a large majority of our applicants. If we actually look at the percentage of each role type of people who have an orchid ID for that role type versus those that don't we see that researcher co-investigators and fellows are far more likely to have connected their orchid ID with the GES system. So looking at discipline and this data was taken directly from the Gateway to Research showing principal applicants by research council with an orchid ID as a percentage of all the records that we hold in GTR and this slide shows us that uptake is most significant amongst principal applicants in the science and technology and the biological and biosciences and natural environment discipline areas and the uptake appears to be lowest amongst applicants in economic and social research. So I did take a look also at age and gender and primarily that there isn't a huge amount to be said about who is connecting orchid IDs by age and gender. The differences are quite small. We're looking at our data the average age of researcher co-investigators who connected their orchid IDs with GES is around 38 years old compared to PIs who are about 45 years old on average so not a huge difference. And similarly looking at the percentage of women that have connected an orchid ID to GES versus percentage of men that have connected their orchid ID to GES and those that haven't we don't see a huge amount of difference there. So it seems that actually career stage and the type of discipline that you're in has the biggest impact on whether or not you're likely to have connected your ID to GES at this stage whilst it's not a mandatory requirement. So we might be able to use this information for example to do some more targeted comms in those discipline areas that are more underrepresented. So I'll talk a little bit about some of the challenges that we encountered. So the big question is around whether or not to mandate. So this was one of the more difficult issues that we had to address. Firstly we had to consider what mandating orchid really meant for us. So for our UK it meant that as a condition of applying for funding from our UK through our online grant submission system applicants would have been required to have an orchid ID. So when a researcher registers for an orchid ID they consent to the processing of their data. If we took the stats if our UK has a funder mandated that all applicants must register for an orchid ID in order to obtain funding from us that it could be argued that it would not always be possible to establish the consent of the researcher at the degree given. Other questions we had were should we apply this to all of our funds, should we apply this to all applicants or just principal applicants. So there were lots of questions that we had to think through. We were obviously recognised the benefits in mandating orchid in that we would have seen a sharp uptake of orchid IDs and it also would have meant the data in GTR was much more comprehensive. So on balance it's not a decision that we took lightly. We considered many angles of the argument and we also sought legal advice on the data protection issues. At this stage we took the decision not to make it a mandatory requirement. We felt that at this stage whilst the benefits to researchers are still slightly further away that it was not a proportionate approach to take. But in the meantime we felt it was more appropriate to focus on promoting and encouraging the uptake of orchid IDs by developing workflows that will create benefits and short-term benefits and contribute towards some of the longer-term goals that we hope to see. In that way we hope the researchers will feel more engaged and continue to make connections between their orchid ID and the systems they interact with. We felt strongly that it's not enough for researchers to simply claim an ID. We obviously want to encourage them to use it and we felt our ability to influence that could be degraded if they felt in any way disengaged. So we're seeing some really positive numbers in terms of orchid IDs being connected as I've already shown you without mandate and there are other things happening in the UK that may have an impact on this. So the Higher Education Funding Council for England is currently consulting on how to implement the next search excellence framework which is broadly equivalent to the ERA in Australia and the PBRF in New Zealand. And one of the questions on that consultation is welcoming views on arguments for and against mandating orchid. So it'll be interesting to see the results from that consultation. Effectively if Hefke decides to mandate orchid then it will encompass the vast majority of research council researchers anyhow and we would expect to see fairly comprehensive coverage across the UK research base as a result. But it's also worth noting that the next ERA exercise won't run until 2021 so we shouldn't obviously rest on our laurels until then. So the other major hurdle that we encountered was limitations with our current IT estate which I alluded to earlier. That estate is quite out of date and we found it would have been very costly and time consuming to get our current system to be able to provide the sort of system interoperability that we wanted to be able to deliver. It's something that research councils UK are still grappling with. We've yet to determine a clear solution but we're continuing to explore different avenues. For example, looking at whether we can create a module that sits between GTR and orchid that can do the push of data. But we're pleased with what's been developed today and we hope we can continue to build on that particularly the push of data from our UK to orchid which is a clear goal that we'd like to deliver. So just some things that I would share based on our UK's experience. So the first thing is about keeping things simple and prioritise our requirements. I think what I saw with our UK is that in the initial excitement about orchid and all the things we could do with it, we perhaps lacked some clarity and that meant that we dragged our heels a little bit and it took us a bit longer to kind of become members and build the integration than we'd have liked. But once we were able to focus down to a single system and aim to start capturing just the authenticated IDs in the first instance, we were able to make good progress after that time. So I would just say think about what you want to achieve and try and break it up into manageable chunks. We started with a collection of authenticated IDs and we then moved on to publishing them and the next logical step for us would be writing grant information to orchid and further down the line looking to read data from orchid to re-using grant applications. So the other tip I'd have is to make sure you've thought through what your next steps are going to be upfront. So whilst we've not developed the functionality to read or write data from orchid as yet, we wanted to make sure that we'd collected those permissioned scopes in the initial integration. As I said earlier, without users would be more likely to accept that in one go rather than in dribs and drabs. So we have essentially kept the door open to be able to do this upstream without having to go back out to researchers again. We found there were a few things that we had to rework as and when we realized kind of what we wanted to implement. So just to think through what you think that end goal is going to be and make sure that you build that upfront. So the third tip I would have is around building workflows that actually create benefits for researchers. But I think and this sort of mirrors some of what Josh shared in his slides that as funders along with publishers, research organizations and others were authoritative sources of information. So we should all focus on building workflows that can push this information to Orgid. If we all make a concerted effort to put in place the infrastructure to make those connections across the system, we'll all benefit in the longer term and we can start to pull information for analysis and reuse further down the line. So my final tip is around talking to the community and telling them what you're up to. So a big piece of feedback we have from research offices in the UK was to give them a decent lead in time before we announced our Orgid integration. So the universities have a big role to play in encouraging their academics to get an Orgid ID and they also wanted to be in a position where they could build Orgid integration into their own back office systems. So we were able to help them prepare for the RCK integration by letting them know early that we were working towards this and send out signals for when they would expect this to go live. So I think Orgid is a community effort. I'd encourage more events like this webinar so that funders can discuss opportunities and barriers and integrate with Orgid and share those amongst us and talk about how we can accelerate the adoption and use of Orgid IDs. So in the UK there's been several consortium meet-ups and these have been a good vehicle for hearing about progress being made and the types of issues that people are encountering and I think there's more that we can do in that space. So I will finish there and hand back over to Natasha. Thank you very much, Sarah. That was a very comprehensive and well considered presentation. There is one question in the question pod from Jason Gush. So Jason, we might just unmute you and you can ask your question if you have access to a microphone. That's the microphone we're watching. Thank you. Sarah, you mentioned that as a UK it's all legal advice about the effect. Can a limited group tell us in even a manner what their advice is on the UK context? Yes, so I've actually got some of it in front of me which is useful. I think essentially what I would say is this isn't black and white it's a grey area. So the legal advice certainly didn't tell us that we couldn't mandate Orgid by any means. In fact, I think in the end our decision was more driven by wanting to incentivise and encourage researchers to get engaged with this initiative and feeling that whilst we were just collecting the IDs in a closed off system that we weren't really able to demonstrate the benefits. But the key areas that we asked for legal advice on was around consent for how a person's data will be processed in that that should be really given specific and informed. The feedback they gave us is that where a researcher and their only source of funding that is available could be argued that that's research councils UK then you could say that would be difficult to ascertain that their consent was freely given. Even then having said that they also the advice essentially said that the data being shared is minimal. It's not sensitive or personal data. So the overall view was that processing does not unfairly prejudice researchers write and that this would be this would constitute a legitimate interest. So and say kind of not completely black and white there but they certainly weren't advising us that we couldn't do it. The other area that we specifically saw advice in was the safe harbor regime to which the feedback and obviously things have moved on since we originally got this but the feedback was that it's not recommended that safe harbor is used as an avenue of protection as a transfer of data outside the EEA. This was obviously relevant for us in the UK but the orchid essentially anyway was not eligible to sign up to safe harbor and that the trustee certification scheme which orchid referred to in their privacy policy is not formally recognized. However, it does demonstrate orchids data protection awareness. So essentially they were happy and confident that orchid was on top of this and again nothing in their advice that said you absolutely shouldn't do this. I hope that helps. Thanks very much. Thanks very much, Sarah. We will move on now to the presentation from Dr. Richard Ikeda from the NIH. Just hand the presentation slides to you, Richard. Okay, well now let me get it up. Okay, so can you see the slides? Yes, we can. Thank you. Great. Thanks. So thank you, Natasha. The NIH is not quite as far along as Sarah is in terms of the integration of orchid but we're headed in that direction and I'd like to tell you a little bit about NIH to begin with and then how we're integrating orchid IDs into our workflow. So the National Institutes of Health is the story of medical and bio-behavioral research. Sorry to interrupt, Richard. It's just an option for you if you'd like to put your slides into presentation mode because we can see all the bar on the left-hand side. Okay, let's slide it. Okay. Any left or? Let me try this. And that's going to get out. We can still read them if it's a problem and the one that's showing at the moment is slide seven. Slide seven? Yes. That's interesting because I've got the first slide, second slide up in my... That's me in the show. Let's try this again then. Yes, that's better. Now we are looking at slide two. Okay. There may be a delay as we move them along. Okay, you're seeing slide two. Okay. That was interesting. Okay. So hopefully this is showing the full slide. Yes, we can see the full slide in the center and then we see the bar on the left. So we can still read your slide because it's just... Okay. That's fine. Let me get rid of that. Just continue. That's better. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So as I said, the National Institute of Health is the steward for medical and bio- behavioral research for the United States. Its mission is to pursue science in terms of fundamental knowledge about nature and behavior in living systems and to apply this knowledge, scientific knowledge, to extend healthy life and to reduce the burden of illness. So how do we do this? Well, as a part of the United States government, we're buried within an administration or a hierarchy, which means we're part of the Department of Health and Human Services and we're one of 11 agencies within the department. The National Institute of Health, though, is in itself pretty complex. The important part of our name is that when the National Institute's Plural of Health, and as you can see from this slide, we've got 27 different institutes with different missions in terms of their focus for health and science. Anywhere from basic science with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences to National Institute of Aging to the National Cancer Society or National Cancer Institute and National Eye Institute. So we all have our individual missions. The NIH in itself has two missions. Its first is to do research within its own campus, which is shown on the left-hand side of this slide. And we have on campus about 6,000 active scientists working on their own research projects and they expand about 10% of the NIH's budget on intramural research. However, 90% or actually 80% of our budget goes out to support research at institutions across the nation and across the globe. We support currently about 4,000 different institutions be it universities, research institutions, hospitals, etc. And we have about 300,000 scientists supported on these research grants and amounts to about 80% of the NIH's budget. What this means is that the NIH gets about 100,000 applications a year. We fund about 13,000 of those on a competitive basis and another 37,000 or so on a continuing basis. So we have quite a big portfolio of funded research grants that go out to the different universities and hospitals and research institutes. You can see here in this slide our operating budget which amounts to $32 billion a year. Research projects amount to 55% of that budget. We then have intramural research, research contracts, research centers, and we also have training, research training, career development, and research management support. But I think what's important to this topic is how do we use or capture or get identifiers and how do we envision using it? So as I said previously, we're not as far along as Sarah is in terms of collecting and using or get IDs. Our initial attempt was to bring in, well, let's back up a second. To use and to apply to NIH, you have to create a personal profile when you get a log in to the NIH system. And since I couldn't use someone else's profile, I had to use my own profile which isn't complete. But this is what it looks like within the system. We collect personal information including name and ID, demographics, your employment, whether you serve as a reviewer in your education. We do this because it's easier for us to associate all your applications and grants to a person profile instead of trying to track person profile through each individual application. This has served us well in terms of being able to automate processes including our recently rolled out assist function which allows for people to apply online and by logging into that application system we can pre-populate personal information from the ID that's used. Well, that's a long-winded introduction but what we have here in this left-hand corner the personal profile is a person ID which NIH assigns and since NIH is a little older than ORCID, our profile IDs go back a little farther. We have the ability to collect an ORCID ID but currently we collect it from a profile system called ScienceCV and this was originally envisioned as a federal for the US government a federal profile system which would allow scientists and researchers to put their profile in at one point and then allow each of the agencies to download their CV or biography without having them having additional information at it. It's adoption however hasn't been going very quickly so we're now looking into actually directly accessing ORCID IDs and allowing our researchers to populate them within the personal profile within the NIH comments itself and so our vision is to try and use these to basically demonstrate the effectiveness and impact of NIH-sponsored research and just an example of what we can do now we've been using things such as the relative citation ratio which measures how many times a publication has been cited in relation to the citation rate for its own field and this is important because we're trying to show that the impact of NIH grants of research is higher than norm and so we do this by looking simply at those publications where we can get an association between the publication and the grant. This has been simplified by a requirement that PIs or principal investigators on a grant actually must associate that grant number with the publication or risk losing funding. So this has allowed us to look at publications that cite grant support and in this example what we see is that in PubMed we have about a million and a half papers that cite NIH publications and about 12 million that don't and the relative citation rate for NIH papers is slightly higher than it is for papers in general. So this is one of the demonstrations that that NIH funding provides greater impact as on the whole across most fields. We've also done things like this where we've looked at productivity of an award of an awardee as a function of the amount of funding they get from the NIH as a function of either the research grant or the program project grant. And what you see is that there is basically decreasing efficiencies that once you get to a certain level of funding your productivity does fall off and we can do this for specific grants specific grant types but we'd like to do like to be able to do this kind of analysis in the one previously for publications by authors or principal investigators that are funded by NIH across all of their publications not just for those works that are that site NIH support. So right now we're early on in our implementation. We are looking now to make sure that we have the authority to collect the ORCID IDs on a voluntary basis and we're also looking into whether we can mandate that or require it. I know that other agencies are also on that track and it may become something that comes a decision for the federal government in general but right now each US agency is working on that independently. So that's just a quick summary of what we've been doing and how we've been doing it and I'm open to questions. Thank you very much Richard. That was a very good talk and some really staggering figures in there and great to see how you're thinking of using ORCID to demonstrate the impact and effectiveness of NIH research. There aren't any questions in the question pod at the moment and we are coming up to towards the end of the webinar time. So I will just ask if anybody would like to ask a question if they could type it into our question box now and we'll just give people a minute to do that. Yep okay well we haven't got any questions in there but I think perhaps people will go away and think about some of the things they've heard in the presentations today. I have put up on the screen the contact details for myself and Nibbuko and if you have any questions or you would like to get in touch with the speakers perhaps via us please do send us an email and there's just a comment from Jason Gush and he's very impressed to see those RCR plots. So I will thank very much our speakers for today Josh, Sarah and Richard for their very honest sharing and of how they're integrating with ORCID and what their plans are for the future and thank you very much for attending. Oh yes and we will send out a link to the recording of the webinar probably in about a week's time. So thank you everybody goodbye or good night depending on where you are in the world.