Credit peer reviewers for their work on their ORCID account

rija commented 3 years ago

User story

As a reviewer I want to have my reviews linked to my ORCID account So that I receive credit for my reviews And so that I can have proof of my peer review efforts for my CV

Acceptance criteria

Given we have the Reviewer ORCIDs in the system When we mint the DOI Then we send the relevant metadata to ORCID via ORCID API

Additional Info

[ ] ORCID needs to be valid for this, How to validate ORCID? can we do it as third party or are we dependent on authors prior validating it themselves

Relevant metadata

See Peer Review Schema:

And tutorial:

https://github.com/ORCID/ORCID-Source/blob/master/orcid-api-web/tutorial/peer-review.md

Product Backlog Item Ready Checklist

[ ] Business value is clearly articulated
[ ] Item is understood enough by the IT team so it can make an informed decision as to whether it can complete this item
[ ] Dependencies are identified and no external dependencies would block this item from being completed
[ ] At the time of the scheduled sprint, the IT team has the appropriate composition to complete this item
[ ] This item is estimated and small enough to comfortably be completed in one sprint
[ ] Acceptance criteria are clear and testable
[ ] Performance criteria, if any, are defined and testable
[ ] The Scrum team understands how to demonstrate this item at the sprint review

Product Backlog Item Done Checklist

[ ] Code is complete
[ ] Automated tests related to the changes are implemented and passing
[ ] All automated test suites are passing locally
[ ] Code is refactored to best practices and coding standards
[ ] Documentation is updated as needed
[ ] A Pull Request has been created and review requested
[ ] Pull Request is reviewed and approved
[ ] The item has been merged to the develop branch
[ ] All automated test suites are passing on continuous Integration pipeline and item is ready to release

rija commented 2 years ago

The ORCID id we need here is actually the one for the reviewers, not the author? Can assume that is not coming from EM, editors will add it to the review system themselve using review system editing tool? The may as well check the validity of the ORCID while at it, maybe?

only1chunts commented 2 years ago

Hi Rija, Yes the orchid is for the reviewer, and you are correct to assume it will not come from EM. As for checking them... That's a question for Scott/Nicole, but for Gigadb we tend to just trust the IDs that the authors give us are correct! Maybe a simple validation of length would be a nice addition, i.e. an orchid is always 16chars in length, usually formatted as 4 blocks of 4 chars separated by hyphens.

Cheers Chris

On Fri, 27 May 2022, 02:49 Rija Ménagé, @.***> wrote:

The ORCID id we need here is actually the one for the reviewers, not the author? Can assume that is not coming from EM, editors will add it to the review system themselve using review system editing tool? The may as well check the validity of the ORCID while at it, maybe?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gigascience/gigadb-website/issues/763#issuecomment-1139335360, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABOB5GJUVSBHGXAT7KQB2IDVMBWBHANCNFSM5CDE36HA . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

rija commented 2 years ago

Thanks @only1chunts

From talking to Scott:

At some point in future , we will do proper validation against ORCI api, but not now, and it's not worth doing the offline syntax validation
Some reviewers won't have an ORCID associated, so the ORCID should be optional

gigascience / gigadb-website