Giving credit to the right Dr. Wong: Seeking a unique ID for scientists

May 26, 2010

Which D. K. Wong gets credit for the next miracle cure? Is it Daniel Keith Wong, Danny Karl Wong, or Danellia Kay Wong? Scientists and publishers are trying to develop a new identity system — similar to a social security number — that would eliminate the alphabet soup of uncertainty that exists among authors of scientific papers with easily-confused names. That's the topic of an article in Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN), ACS' weekly newsmagazine.

C&EN Senior Editor Sophie Rovner notes that rightly want credit for their research discoveries without being confused with individuals with the same name or initials. However, there's no universal system for attributing research discoveries to the correct scientist among many with the same name. As a result, researchers, , and scientific and government organizations are seeking a "unique author identifier."

One possible approach to such unique identifiers involves setting up a central registry where every scientist could obtain an ID upon publication of their first paper and use it throughout a lifetime of publishing papers, applying for grants, and conducting other scientific business. The article describes a number of such projects currently being developed.

Explore further: Education Dept awards $75M in innovation grants

More information: "A Question of Identity", Chemical & Engineering News, pubs.acs.org/cen/science/88/8821sci2.html

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

U. S. envisions a new generation of nuclear weapons

Mar 19, 2007

Almost 62 years after detonation of the first atomic bombs, the United States is considering controversial proposals to produce a new generation of nuclear weapons and revamp its nuclear weapons complex, according to an article ...

Race for better superconductors heats up

Oct 20, 2008

Scientists have discovered a new family of superconductors -- materials that carry electricity more efficiently than copper and other metals -- whose properties rekindle enthusiasm about the possibility that these exotic ...

Recommended for you

Research band at Karolinska tuck Dylan gems into papers

Sep 29, 2014

(Phys.org) —A 17-year old bet among scientists at the Karolinska Institute has been a wager that whoever wrote the most articles with Dylan quotes before they retired would get a free lunch. Results included ...

A simulation game to help people prep for court

Sep 25, 2014

Preparing for court and appearing before a judge can be a daunting experience, particularly for people who are representing themselves because they can't afford a lawyer or simply don't know all the ropes ...

When finding 'nothing' means something

Sep 25, 2014

Scientists usually communicate their latest findings by publishing results as scientific papers in journals that are almost always accessible online (albeit often at a price), ensuring fast sharing of latest ...

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

tkjtkj
not rated yet May 30, 2010
Who ever, on earth, defined a scientist as one who has published a paper? Just where did that lil concept come from? Do they mean that some dedicated Doctorate person, working a lifetime gathering data but for one reason or another not publishing them is to be ostracized from the 'new scientific community'? This seems outrageously unfair.

I, for example, did work in a cancer research lab during my doctorate studies. Who would like to step forward and characterize what i did as 'not scientific' ? What laboratories are staffed by many many Doctorates who, by their sheer numbers , can not all be listed as authors even though they did perform some quantity of contribution to the lab's goals?

This sort of myopic thinking at first blush might seem like a good idea. Upon reflection, it has its faults!

tkjtkj@gmail.com
JoeDuff
1 / 5 (1) May 30, 2010
I'm curious, who will get the number one? Mr. Einstein, Newton or Aristotle?

Anyway, scientists are payed like any other people per time or (less frequently) per publication and they're getting money for it.

Why they should get some extra credit for it? There are many inventors and engineers, which developed things, which are used daily without any science or even publications behind it.

Anyway, it's another indicia, science is changing into sectarian community, i.e. island of communism sponsored from mandatory fees of the rest of society, be more specific. The numbering of people is well known attribute of many sects.