PILOT

Author Disambiguation

Status: Pilot running

 

The Participating Institutions

Groningen University, TU Eindhoven, Maastricht University.

This pilot intends to address the problem of recognizing the correct author, with its affiliation and outputs, by linking instances of the same author, institution, or publication with different names – and distinguish between instances of unique authors, institutions, or publications with similar names.  By addressing this issue, we address two specific demands:

1. Enable a better exchange of author records thus increasing meta data quality while lowering the administrative burden on local CRIS metadata management and
2. Provide a more accurate way to describe, match and share author data across organizations

To enable the above, a national (at first) database of authors and affiliations is required that functions as a deduplication and exchange hub of rich author and affiliated organization metadata (PIDs), assisting local CRIS managers in identifying and enriching author profiles. (this database could well be a subset of a national ORI).

To enable such a database, a registry and matching service is required.  This pilot will test and review if and how the registry and matching services, supported by Elsevier’s  IDExchange tool fit the needs of the participating Institutions.  The Institutions will have access to IDExchange services via an API gateway in exchange for analyses and support that will allow both parties to fully understand the potential value of the application. The pilot therefore comprises of an implementation and evaluation phase.

The pilot should answer questions like:

• What is the business process of Participating Institution, where does IDExchange fit in?
• What are the examples of queries to IDExchange? How frequent are they expected to be (what is the expected service load)?
• How does the Service compare with potential alternatives, including the in-house and/or manual solutions of Participating institutions?
• To what extent does IDExchange meet requirements for, Accuracy , Processing speed, Flexibility, Coverage
• Customer feedback:
  • What would need to be improved?
  • Does the Service need more data, different set up?
  • One best match vs. all matches sorted by relevance – which solution is better suited?
  • What are the other person directories to be present in PersonRegistry?

 

Relevant links

• Author Disambiguation Statement of Work
• Author Disambiguation Framework Document