Mapping Scholarly Identities: A Descriptive Study of Spanish ORCID Records at the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)

This version of the manuscript is a preprint and has yet to undergo peer review 1 Mapping Scholarly Identities: A Descriptive Study of Spanish 1 ORCID Records at the Spanish National Research Council 2 (CSIC) 3 Bruno Penadés1, Teresa Muñoz-Écija2*, Benjamín Vargas-Quesada3, and Zaida Chinchilla4 Rodríguez1 5 [email protected]; teresam[email protected]; benjam[email protected]; [email protected] 6 0000-0001-7261-6400; 0000-0003-1311-0471; 0000-0001-5115-7460; 0000-0002-1608-4478 7 1Institute of Public Goods and Policies (IPP), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), 8 Madrid, Spain 9 2Arqus European University Alliance, University of Granada, Granada, Spain 10 3Unit for Computational Humanities and Social Sciences (U-CHASS), University of Granada, 11 Granada, Spain. 12 *Corresponding author 13 Abstract 14 This study analyzes the adoption and use of ORCID compared to other researcher profile 15 systems across research domains and job categories at the Spanish National Research Council 16 (CSIC). The sample consists of authors affiliated with CSIC who published at least one 17 publication between 2013 and 2022. The results reveal that the adoption rate of ORCID was 18 higher than for public Google Scholar profiles. The ORCID profiles show a gender gap, with 19 men registering more profiles and completing more fields. Permanent researchers adopted 20 ORCID to a greater extent and were among those who completed the most sections. Natural 21 Resources and Social Science had the highest profile number, while Humanities displayed the 22 most complete profiles. In addition, a rapid increase in ORCID registrations was observed in the 23 early years following its implementation, followed by a gradual decline, while ORCID profile 24 updates remained consistent over time. We hope our findings could inform researchers and 25 institutional strategies to enhance the use of persistent identifiers, strengthen data completeness, 26 and address the gender gap in ORCID adoption, ultimately supporting the CSIC’s commitment 27 to open science and research integrity. 28 Keywords: ORCID adoption, ORCID completeness, gender, job category, thematic area, CSIC. 29 Key Points 30 ● The creation of ORCID profiles experienced rapid growth following the emergence of 31 the organization, which gradually declined after peaking in 2014. 32 ● The percentage of authors who adopted ORCID was moderate (63.8%), but higher than 33 Google Scholar public profiles and the percentages of active fields was low (38.6%). 34 This version of the manuscript is a preprint and has yet to undergo peer review 2 ● There is a gender gap, with men having more registrations (Male: 69.9%; Female: 35 57.9%) and more active fields completed in their profiles (Male: 40.1%; Female: 36 36.9%). 37 ● Permanent researchers adopted ORCID at a higher rate (86.8%) and were who 38 completed more fields (40.6%), while the areas with the most registrations were Natural 39 Resources (72.6%) and Social Sciences (72.4%), and the most complete profiles were 40 found in Humanities (43.7%). 41 ● All permanent researchers occupy the top positions in ORCID adoption across research 42 areas, but the number of active fields varied considerably across different job categories 43 within CSIC. 44 ● Update of ORCID profiles are consistent over time. 45 46 1. Introduction 47 The increasing volume of scientific output has underscored the need for mechanisms that ensure 48 the unambiguous identification of authors, preventing attribution errors and enhancing research 49 visibility. Persistent identifiers (PIDs) have emerged as fundamental tools in modern research 50 ecosystems, enabling the seamless connection of researchers’ contribution across disciplines, 51 institutions, and time. These identifiers play a crucial role in improving research integrity, 52 ensuring proper attribution, and supporting the principles of open science (Marín-Arraiza, 53 2019). 54 ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) is one of the most widely adopted PIDs, 55 providing a unique identifier for researchers and facilitating interoperability among research 56 platforms (Haak et al., 2012). Among the various benefits introduced by this identifier, one of 57 the key advantages of ORCID is its ability to address issues of name ambiguity, which is 58 particularly relevant in regions with common surnames, such as China (Xu & Hu, 2024). It also 59 enables the tracking of various researcher attributes, including institutional affiliations, research 60 output, and professional activities, ensuring accurate and comprehensive scholarly records 61 (Kim, 2025). 62 The adoption of ORCID is also instrumental in increasing research visibility, especially when it 63 is integrated with platforms and researcher profile systems such as ResearchGate, Google 64 Scholar, and Academia.edu (Craft, 2020). These integrations enhance research dissemination, 65 foster academic networking (Fernández-Ramos & Barrionuevo, 2021), and support the 66 evaluation of research outputs (Boudry & Durand-Barthez, 2020). 67 Beyond visibility, ORCID makes a significant contribution to research transparency, integrity, 68 and credibility. It improves the tracking of scholarly outputs, even in cases of group authorship 69 or when retractions must be incorporated into researcher profiles (Candal-Pedreira et al., 2024). 70 ORCID also plays a role in addressing academic integrity challenges, such as combating journal 71 hijacking on indexing platforms like Scopus (Abalkina, 2024). Furthermore, ORCID is part of 72 the infrastructure employed in initiatives like the standardized ‘Publication Facts Label’, which 73 provides critical metadata on the publication process and helps researchers and readers assess 74 the reliability of academic work (Willinsky & Pimentel, 2024). 75 This version of the manuscript is a preprint and has yet to undergo peer review 3 Despite the growing use of ORCID and its recognized benefits for scholarly communication, 76 there has been no comprehensive analysis of its adoption within Spain’s largest research 77 institution, the Spanish National Research Council. In particular, little is known about how 78 CSIC researchers use ORCID about other profile systems, the completeness of their records, or 79 patterns linked to gender, job category, and research domains. This study addresses that gap by 80 examining the adoption and use of ORCID among CSIC-affiliated authors, aiming to provide a 81 detailed overview of usage trends, metadata quality, and demographic differences. 82 83 1.1 Literature review 84 Among the various systems that support open science communication, ORCID stands out due to 85 its broad adoption and integration into scholarly infrastructure. It enables researchers to 86 consolidate information related to their publications, funded projects, and academic 87 collaborations, offering a persistent digital identity (Haak et al., 2012). Nevertheless, enhancing 88 metadata completeness and interoperability among platforms remains a significant challenge for 89 managing research output. In this context, a comparison between ORCID and repositories such 90 as DataCite, Zenodo, Dryad, and Figshare highlights DataCite’s central role in facilitating cross91 platform data exchange (Sixto-Costoya et al., 2021). 92 The integration of OpenAlex with ORCID has further improved academic record accuracy for 93 Spanish researchers, expanding metadata coverage and strengthening research tracking 94 mechanisms (Arroyo-Machado et al., 2025). In the US and Canada, academic librarians have 95 emphasized ORCID’s priority over other platforms and recommended its broader adoption in 96 research institutions (Zhang & Kumaran, 2022; Fuhr & Monnin, 2024). However, metadata 97 completeness remains with some gaps, as missing ORCID IDs for some researchers and 98 insufficient standardization hinder the full potential of persistent identifiers in research 99 assessment (Aghassibake et al., 2023; Costas et al., 2024). 100 National and institutional initiatives have leveraged PIDs to enhance research management, 101 reduce administrative burdens, and align with FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, 102 Interoperable, and Reusable) (Cousijn et al., 2021; Marín‐Arraiza, 2022). In Germany, ORCID 103 has been adopted to streamline research administration (Pampel et al., 2024), while institutions 104 such as Université Grenoble Alpes have emphasized their role in assessing research 105 performance, institutional visibility, and open science policies (Larrieu et al., 2024). The global 106 adoption of ORCID has improved metadata management, affiliation tracking, and research 107 accessibility (Fernández-Marcial et al., 2023; Heusse & Cabanac, 2022; Quinn, 2023; Calvo & 108 Arquero Avilés, 2020). 109 Beyond this role in research administration, ORCID is also a tool that provides valuable insights 110 into scientific mobility, revealing research trajectories and their implications for science and 111 migration policies (Moreno-Delgado et al., 2024). It helps identify patterns in global 112 collaboration, including regionalization trends and the stability of scientific partnerships 113 (Gomez et al., 2020; Porter, 2022). In addition, ORCID data from the US has demonstrated that 114 mobility trends are influenced by institutional prestige and research intensity, though disparities 115 persist based on geographical location and gender (Hannak et al., 2023; Yan et al., 2020). 116 This version of the manuscript is a preprint and has yet to undergo peer review 4 While ORCID has been widely adopted by research institutions, its implementation faces 117 significant challenges. Ethical concerns regarding mandatory implementation, data protection, 118 and academic autonomy have been noted, particularly in studies examining attitudes in Irish 119 higher education (Houghton & Foster, 2024; Teixeira da Silva, 2020). Adoption rates also vary 120 across institutional roles, with librarians and administrative staff often embracing ORCID at 121 higher rates than academic researchers, though many scholars acknowledge the benefits 122 outweigh the potential risks (Teixeira da Silva, 2024). 123 In Spain, the integration of ORCID into research institutions began in 2013 at the University of 124 Oviedo, followed by efforts from the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT) 125 to promote its national adoption (Marín-Arraiza & Mejias, 2020). The Spanish National 126 Research Council, the country’s largest public research institution, subsequently incorporated 127 ORCID into its research management infrastructure. As a member of the ORCID consortium, 128 CSIC has developed several systems to support ORCID integration, including GesBIB, a 129 bibliometric database for analyzing scientific output and impact. The institutional adoption of 130 ORCID has facilitated seamless interactions between ORCID IDs and CSIC’s internal research 131 information systems, enabling federated authentication and automatic publication data 132 synchronization with researcher profiles (Dorado, 2019). 133 Even with these initiatives, no comprehensive study has examined ORCID adoption among 134 CSIC researchers, particularly with bibliographic database profiles and usage patterns. 135 Therefore, the objectives of this study are (1) to assess ORCID adoption compared to other 136 researcher profile systems; (2) to analyze whether job category and research area influence 137 ORCID adoption and participation; (3) to evaluate the activation of ORCID metadata fields; and 138 (4) to examine trends in record completeness and profile update frequency. Additionally, all 139 analyses will incorporate a gender perspective, focusing on authors affiliated with CSIC who 140 have published at least once between 2013 and 2022. 141 We hope this study serves as an empirical reference for future actions that CSIC may take to 142 improve the adoption and completion of researchers' profiles. The findings could inform 143 institutional strategies to enhance the use of persistent identifiers, strengthen data completeness, 144 and address the gender gap in ORCID adoption, thus supporting the CSIC’s commitment to 145 open science and research integrity. 146 147 2. Methods 148 2.1 Data collection 149 This study relies on data extracted from GesBIB and other CSIC databases related to job 150 category and ORCID, two complementary sources for analyzing researcher profiles. GesBIB is 151 a bibliographic and scientific publication management platform developed by CSIC. From this 152 source, researcher-level information was gathered, including persistent author identifiers 153 (Scopus Author ID, owned by Elsevier; ResearcherID, owned by Clarivate Analytics; and 154 ORCID ID), academic public profiles (Google Scholar Profile), job positions within CSIC from 155 the GESPER CSIC database, and the institutional affiliations from which authors had published. 156 In addition, ORCID data were taken from the previous study by Arroyo-Machado et al. (2025), 157 providing a continuation of the analysis of Spanish researchers' presence on this platform. 158 This version of the manuscript is a preprint and has yet to undergo peer review 5 2.2 Sample selection 159 The initial dataset included 13,847 authors (Female: 51%; Male: 49%) who published at least 160 one publication between 2013 and 2022. Duplicate records (n=3; 0.02%) and those without any 161 employment data (n=21; 0.2%) were removed. 162 2.2.1 Job categories 163 GesBIB is enriched by the GESPER platform, which registers the job category of authors 164 affiliated with the CSIC, including three variables intended to record the job positions of CSIC 165 staff. The job scale variable contained 93 non-standardized job categories (missing values: 166 2.5%). Additionally, a second variable recoded job types, which included 40 categories (missing 167 values: 0.3%). The third variable, namely job subtypology contained the same amount of data, 168 but with very generic labels. To ensure data consistency, all missing values in the job category 169 variable were reclassified by cross-checking the information available for each of the three 170 reference periods, using any recorded job category to assign the most accurate classification. As 171 a result, no missing values remain in the final dataset. 172 Permanent researchers were composed of tenured scientists, research scientists, research 173 professors, and, to a lesser extent, ad honorem and distinguished researchers. Temporary staff 174 included all fellows, visiting researchers, employees hired under a specific project, among 175 others. Support staff consisted mainly of technicians, who could be either temporary or 176 permanent, as well as members of the state administration. 177 Temporary staff constituted the vast majority of CSIC authors and was the category with the 178 highest gender parity (Fig. 1). Permanent researchers represented a much smaller percentage, 179 and the proportion of men significantly exceeded that of women, unlike support staff, where 180 women were in the majority, despite being the staff category with the fewest authorship 181 contributions. 182 183 Figure 1. Percentage of CSIC-affiliated authors by job category and gender 184 2.2.2 Research areas 185 The CSIC comprises over 120 research institutes, with its research structured into three broad 186 areas: Life, Matter, and Society (Table 1). These areas encompass eight specific research 187 domains: Life: Agricultural Sciences, Biology and Biomedicine, Food Science and Technology, 188 and Natural Resources; Matter: Chemical Science and Technologies, Materials Science and 189 This version of the manuscript is a preprint and has yet to undergo peer review 6 Technology, and Physical Science and Technologies; and Society: Humanities and Social 190 Sciences. 191 Research area Research domain Life - Agricultural Sciences - Biology and Biomedicine - Food Science and Technology - Natural Resources Matter - Chemical Science and Technologies - Materials Science and Technology - Physical Science and Technologies Society - Humanities and Social Sciences Table 1. CSIC research areas and research domains 192 The database included two variables identifying the last CSIC center or institute from which 193 authors were affiliated when they published, as well as a variable listing all the institutes where 194 authors had been affiliated, in the case of multiple affiliations. 195 We recoded all centers or institutes into their respective research areas, and we separated 196 Humanities from Social Sciences. Although both research domains share many similarities, the 197 main reason for dividing them was the distinct methodological approaches used in each to 198 address their respective study objects. 199 Furthermore, the database not only includes research centers or institutes but also presidents, 200 vice-presidents, and delegations, which were recoded into the research area corresponding to the 201 institution with which each author was affiliated at the time of publication. To ensure accuracy, 202 we accessed the researchers' profiles in GesBIB database to retrieve relevant information. 203 Additionally, variables were combined to cross-check data when coding discrepancies arose, 204 minimizing the loss of information, including the minimal initial missing values (0.2%). 205 Biology and Biomedicine represented the research domain with the greatest number of authors 206 at the CSIC and a large proportion of women (Fig. 2). In contrast, Physical Sciences and 207 Technologies displayed the greatest gender disparity, favoring men, and were the third-largest 208 area in terms of publishing researchers. Agricultural Sciences closely followed, with women 209 making similar contributions to Biology and Biomedicine. However, the highest visibility of 210 female authors was found in Food Science and Technology, despite it being one of the research 211 domains with the fewest publishing staff. Humanities and Social Sciences, although the smallest 212 domain, exhibited a more balanced gender distribution. 213 This version of the manuscript is a preprint and has yet to undergo peer review 7 214 Figure 2. Percentage of CSIC-affiliated authors by research domains and gender 215 2.2.3 Matching procedure with ORCID and the number of active fields 216 Records from GesBIB were linked to ORCID metadata via ORCID ID from the 217 orcid_metrics.csv file previously used in a study intended to analyze ORCID’s patterns among 218 Spanish researchers (Arroyo-Machado et al., 2025), . After matching the sample was reduced to 219 7,193 authors (Male: 54.2%; Female: 45.8%). 18.5% of cases with ORCID were not merged 220 with the data from orcid_metrics.csv due to their absence in the file. The distribution of these 221 cases by gender (Male: 51.3%; Female: 48.7%) and job category (Temporary Staff: 77.7%; 222 Permanent Researchers: 15%; Support Staff: 7.2%) was random. Only 3 cases (0.04%) were 223 removed after the merge because they contained NULL values in the descriptive information. 224 ORCID adoption was measured as the proportion of researchers with an ORCID ID. 225 Additionally, adoption/indexing rates for other researcher profile systems (Scopus Author ID, 226 ResearcherID, and Google Scholar Profile) included in GesBIB, were processed. Scopus Author 227 IDs and ResearcherIDs are generated automatically when an author has works indexed in those 228 services; therefore, their presence reflects indexing practices as much as individual ‘adoption’ 229 Google Scholar Profiles refer to those explicitly created by researchers, not to the inclusion of 230 works in Google Scholar. In the case of the CSIC, we assume that ORCID ID is actively 231 obtained and registered by the researcher. Then, ORCID CSIC’s integration (through 232 GesBIB/URICI) allows updates to the ‘Works’ field in ORCID when researchers authorize the 233 connection; CSIC does not post other metadata (e.g., funding, service activities) on behalf of 234 researchers (Dorado, 2019). This clarification highlights the conceptual difference between 235 automatically assigned identifiers and voluntary adoption, and completeness of active fields in 236 ORCID. 237 Profile completeness was assessed as the percentage of active fields in theORCID record – that 238 is, the proportion of the 13 ORCID metadata fields, excluding the name field, as it is a basic 239 requirement for account creation (ORCID, 2025). Descriptive analyses were conducted to 240 examine ORCID adoption and the number of active fields across job categories, research areas, 241 and gender. Metadata fields were analyzed to determine common completion patterns, 242 intersections between fields, and profile update frequencies. Statistical analyses were carried out 243 using R (v4.5.1). 244 245 This version of the manuscript is a preprint and has yet to undergo peer review 8 3. Results 246 3.1 Adoption of researcher profile systems 247 The 13,847 CSIC-affiliated authors who, published at least once between 2013 and 2022, had at 248 least one persistent identifier or author profile on the main academic platforms (99.5%; Fig. 3). 249 As Scopus IDs and Researcher IDs are auto-assigned, most CSIC-affiliated authors have a 250 profile in each system. Both authors' profiles show equal proportions by gender. Therefore, their 251 presence does not necessarily reflect an active choice by the researcher in the same way as 252 ORCID registration. In contrast, the open and independent ORCID identifier lagged far behind, 253 with men using it more frequently than women by over ten percentage points. 254 Among researchers without an ORCID profile but with a Scopus Author ID, women were 255 overrepresented (Female: 59.5%; Male: 40.5%), as well as temporary staff (Temporary Staff: 256 80.3%; Support Staff: 14.1%; Permanent Researchers: 5.6%). The same proportions were 257 observed among those holding a Researcher ID without an ORCID. Figures 4 and 5 show the 258 distribution of job category, gender and research areas among researchers with and without an 259 ORCID profile 260 Another specific case was the public academic profiles offered by Google Scholar. Not only 261 were a minority of CSIC-affiliated authors registered, but the largest gender gap was also 262 observed. 263 264 Figure 3. Percentage of CSIC-affiliated authors with researcher profiles by gender. Note: Total 265 percentages are presented alongside the name of the researcher profile system. 266 3.2 ORCID adoption and completeness by job category 267 The degree of adoption and completeness varied considerably among the different employment 268 categories within CSIC (Fig. 4). Permanent researchers had the highest ORCID adoption rates 269 (86.8%) and also the highest completeness levels (40.6%), with minimal gender differences in 270 either direction. In contrast, the lowest adoption percentage was observed among support staff 271 (39.6%), where women registered lower values than men in both adoption and number of active 272 fields (34.4%). 273 This version of the manuscript is a preprint and has yet to undergo peer review 9 Furthermore, the largest gender gap in adoption was found among temporary staff (Male: 274 67.8%; Female: 56.6%), and in completeness among support staff (Male: 37.6%; Female: 275 31.9%). 276 277 Figure 4. Percentage of ORCID adoption and percentages of active fields among CSIC278 affiliated authors by job category. Note: Circles represent female authors and triangles represent 279 male authors. Colors indicate different job categories. Marker size corresponds to the number of 280 authors within each job category. Abbreviations are as follows: Perm. Reser. = Permanent 281 Researchers; Temp. Staff = Temporary Staff; Supp. Staff = Support Staff. 282 3.3 ORCID adoption and completeness by research area 283 This analysis revealed a scenario in which the highest ORCID adoption rates were found in 284 Natural Resources (72.6%) and Social Sciences (72.4%; Fig. 5). The adoption percentage 285 decreased gradually across other research domains, with Biology and Biomedicine researchers 286 at the lowest end (54.9%). The commitment from the Humanities domain was higher than the 287 other research domains (43.7%), with women standing out, though still far from 50% 288 completeness. On the other hand, researchers in Biology and Biomedicine had the least 289 complete profiles (36.7%). 290 In general, women adopted ORCID less frequently than men across all research areas, but it was 291 in Biology and Biomedicine where less than half of the women had this identifier and where the 292 engagement levels were the lowest. 293 This version of the manuscript is a preprint and has yet to undergo peer review 16 and platforms via other identifiers. This was also observed in a sample of Spanish researchers 432 with ORCID IDs (Arroyo-Machado et al., 2025), although the main intersections varied 433 slightly. CSIC-affiliated authors complete roughly the same ORCID fields as the overall 434 Spanish cohort, but they indeed leave most fields inactive. This conclusion was also reached by 435 Fernández-Marcial et al. (2023) after studying at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities at the 436 University of Porto. A significant portion of professors filled in 'Works', 'Employment', and 437 'Education and Qualification' fields, but biographical information (such as the 'Biography', 438 'Country', and 'Keywords' fields) was scarce, which contributes to the identification of profiles 439 in a unique manner. 440 On the other hand, the growth curve we observed in ORCID registration during the study period 441 is consistent with the Spanish researcher sample (Arroyo-Machado et al., 2025; Porter, 2022), 442 although not all countries followed the same growth pattern (Porter, 2022). The time since the 443 last update is shorter among CSIC-affiliated authors than in the Spanish sample with ORCID 444 profiles (Arroyo-Machado et al., 2025). This could be because the public institution can update 445 the ORCID profiles if the owner authorizes it (Dorado, 2019). 446 5. Limitations and further studies 447 Despite the insights gained from our sample, the study was not without limitations. 448 The effect of starting with a moderate percentage of CSIC-affiliated authors with ORCID iDs 449 and, at the same time, almost 20% not matching the identifiers from the Spanish researchers’ 450 metadata, resulted in a significant reduction in the sample size when analyzing the interaction 451 between job category and research domains. This also became evident in analyses on the time 452 elapsed since ORCID profiles were updated. 453 Up until now, studies on ORCID adoption and/or completion that include gender have been 454 rare. More examples from other scientific institutions need to be documented to determine 455 whether CSIC is an isolated case or part of a broader trend. Moreover, the number of 456 publications by researchers might be a substantial explanatory factor. Future research will aim 457 to increase the number of publications from CSIC-affiliated authors to narrow the sample to 458 CSIC employees with research profiles. 459 In addition, the dataset used in this study (Arroyo-Machado et al., 2025) does not include 460 information on whether ORCID record updates were made manually by researchers or 461 automatically through third-party integrations (e.g., publishers, Crossref, or DataCite). 462 Distinguishing between these modes of update would offer valuable insight into researchers’ 463 actual engagement with ORCID and the extent to which they rely on automated mechanisms — 464 an aspect that should be addressed in future studies 465 6. Conclusions 466 The CSIC has adopted specific policies to encourage ORCID, however, our results show that 467 the percentage of CSIC-affiliated authors with ORCID IDs is moderate and well below Scopus 468 Author ID and ResearcherID, but much higher than Google Scholar Profile. 469 This version of the manuscript is a preprint and has yet to undergo peer review 17 A gender gap exists, with men having more ORCID registrations and being more committed to 470 completing their profiles than women. Profile creation was initially driven by men during the 471 early years after ORCID’s introduction. While empirical evidence on this phenomenon is still 472 lacking, gender differences were also observed in Google Scholar profiles, and both researcher 473 profile systems share the requirement of manual account creation. Thus, more empirical support 474 is needed to understand whether this is a common phenomenon or an anomaly in academia, as 475 well as its causes, to address it. This phenomenon could be interpreted through the lens of the 476 Matilda Effect (Rossiter, 1993), which highlights the systemic underrecognition of women in 477 science. Women are often underrepresented in senior academic positions and receive fewer 478 citations even when publishing in top journals (Sugimoto & Larivière, 2023). These disparities 479 may discourage them from investing time in maintaining their digital identifiers, particularly 480 when visibility does not translate into equitable recognition or career advancement. 481 Academic hierarchy explains the adoption of ORCID among CSIC staff. As the scientific 482 responsibility increases, so does the proportion of ORCID profiles. Permanent researchers 483 publish consistently. Meanwhile, temporary staff, consisting of predoctoral or postdoctoral 484 researchers, need to publish articles to make their scientific output visible, whereas support 485 staff, mainly composed of technicians, focus their work on service, instrumentation, and 486 management. This can likely be explained not only by job position but also by the number of 487 publications, as many journals require ORCID IDs for publication. Likewise, the employment 488 categories followed an ascending order in terms of completeness, according to their level of 489 scientific involvement, although the percentage of completed fields was low in all cases. 490 Additionally, CSIC-affiliated authors tend to prioritize completing fields that showcase their 491 scientific output, professional and educational background, and linking their profiles to other 492 identifiers. This lack of completion in some cases makes it difficult to uniquely identify authors 493 publishing under the same name, regardless of their institutional affiliation, as they do not 494 always fill out these fields consistently. An incomplete profile not only hinders funding 495 agencies, repositories, or evaluation processes from automating workflows and validating 496 researchers’ identities but also prevents bibliometric studies from enriching their research with 497 valuable information. 498 Maximizing the Benefits of ORCID: Recommendations for Institutions and Researchers 499 ORCID is more than a technical identifier: it is a strategic tool that secures attribution, 500 strengthens research visibility, and builds trust in scholarly communication. Its integration with 501 editorial, funding, and institutional systems reduces administrative burden and improves 502 metadata quality, while complete and regularly updated researcher profiles amplify individual 503 and institutional recognition. To fully harness these benefits, we recommend the following 504 actions. 505 For institutions (e.g., CSIC): (1) Consolidate ORCID integration with institutional CRIS 506 platforms and funder workflows to streamline reporting, ensure data interoperability, and 507 enhance institutional reputation through trustworthy metadata; (2) Promote researcher 508 authorization for automatic synchronization of publication lists, ensuring that outputs are 509 consistently attributed while reducing manual reporting tasks; (3) Provide targeted training and 510 onboarding for early-career researchers and support staff, highlighting how ORCID can 511 simplify career tracking, support open-science practices, and improve the visibility of diverse 512 research contributions; (4) Monitor ORCID uptake and profile completeness by gender, 513 This version of the manuscript is a preprint and has yet to undergo peer review 18 discipline, and job category, and design interventions to close adoption gaps. This strengthens 514 inclusivity and equity in research evaluation; (5) Position ORCID as a core component of open 515 science infrastructure, demonstrating its value for transparency, interoperability, and the 516 institution’s global impact. 517 For researchers: (1) Register and maintain an ORCID iD as a professional asset that guarantees 518 correct attribution across name changes, multiple affiliations, and different languages; (2) Keep 519 key fields updated—Works, Employment, and Education—since profile completeness directly 520 enhances discoverability, supports funding applications, and ensures recognition of all types of 521 outputs, from datasets and software to articles and creative works; (3) Enable automatic imports 522 from publishers, repositories, and funders to reduce administrative effort while ensuring that 523 records remain accurate and comprehensive; (4) Use ORCID proactively on CVs, institutional 524 profiles, and grant applications to strengthen academic visibility and signal alignment with 525 international open-science standards. 526 In short, widespread and active ORCID adoption benefits both researchers and institutions: 527 researchers gain visibility, recognition, and reduced administrative workload, while institutions 528 obtain accurate, interoperable, and trusted metadata to support reporting, evaluation, and 529 strategic planning. Promoting ORCID and encouraging the completion of researcher profiles is 530 therefore not only a matter of compliance but also a pathway to greater transparency, efficiency, 531 and global impact. 532 We hope this study provides valuable insights for CSIC to optimize the adoption and use of 533 ORCID among its researchers. Understanding adoption patterns and metadata completeness will 534 enable CSIC to develop targeted strategies for encouraging the use of ORCID and other 535 persistent identifiers. Moreover, this research highlights the need for greater standardization and 536 data practices, which can contribute to enhancing the visibility and impact of CSIC’s research 537 outputs on a national and international scale. By addressing gender disparities and job category 538 differences in ORCID adoption, the findings could help guide future institutional policies and 539 support actions aimed at improving the overall research environment within CSIC. Ultimately, 540 the results may contribute to a more efficient and integrated research management system, 541 fostering a stronger commitment to open science principles and enhancing CSIC’s role in the 542 global research community. 543 7. Acknowledgments 544 The authors acknowledge the support of Agnès Ponsati, Director of URICI (CSIC), for 545 providing institutional data for this study. We are also grateful to Luis Dorado for his assistance 546 in managing and providing data from the GesBIB platform. 547 Funding 548 This work is part of the RESPONSIBLE project (Ref: PID2021-128429NB-I00) funded by the 549 Spanish Ministry of Science (Ref: MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 FSE invierte en tu 550 futuro). 551 552 8. References 553 This version of the manuscript is a preprint and has yet to undergo peer review 19 Abalkina, A. (2024). Challenges posed by hijacked journals in Scopus. Journal of the 554 Association for Information Science and Technology, 75(4), 395–422. 555 https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24855 556 Aghassibake, N., Castello, O. G., Gujilde, P., & Rabun, S. (2023). Visualizing institutional 557 activity using persistent identifier metadata. Information Services and Use, 43(3–4), 558 335–342. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-230218 559 Arroyo-Machado, W., Vargas-Quesada, B., Muñoz-Écija, T., & Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z. 560 (2025). Exploring ORCID adoption and metadata presence in Spain’s research 561 landscape. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05248-8 562 Boudry, C., & Bouchard, A. (2025). Adoption and use of author identifier services: A French 563 national survey. Learned Publishing, e1640. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1640 564 Boudry, C., & Durand-Barthez, M. (2020). Use of author identifier services (ORCID, 565 ResearcherID) and academic social networks (Academia.edu, ResearchGate) by the 566 researchers of the University of Caen Normandy (France): A case study. PLoS ONE, 567 15(9): e0238583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238583 568 Calvo, B. S., & Arquero Avilés, R. (2020). Plataformas digitales y reputación académica: 569 análisis del área de Biblioteconomía y Documentación en España. Ibersid: Revista De 570 Sistemas De información Y documentación, 14(1), 69–77. 571 https://doi.org/10.54886/ibersid.v14i1.4692 572 Candal-Pedreira, C., Ruano-Ravina, A., Pérez-Ríos, M., & Provencio, M. (2024). Promoting 573 responsible scientific research: integrating retractions into the ORCID profile. Journal 574 of Clinical Epidemiology, 172, 111403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111403 575 Choraś, M., & Jaroszewska-Choraś, D. (2020). The scrutinizing look on the impending 576 proliferation of mandatory ORCID use from the perspective of data protection, privacy 577 and freedom of science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 45(4), 492–507. 578 https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2020.1780773 579 Costas, R., Corona-Sobrino, C., & Robinson-García, N. (2024). Could ORCID play a key role 580 in meta-research? Discussing new analytical possibilities to study the dynamics of 581 science and scientists. In A. Oancea, G. E. Derrick, N. Nuseibeh & X. Xu (Eds.), 582 Handbook of Meta-Research (pp. 215–232). Edward Elgar 583 Publishinghttps://doi.org/10.4337/9781839105722.00026 584 Cousijn, H., Braukmann, R., Fenner, M., Ferguson, C., van Horik, R., Lammey, R., Meadows, 585 A., & Lambert, S. (2021). Connected research: The potential of the PID graph. Patterns, 586 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2020.100180 587 Craft, A. R. (2020). Managing researcher identity: Tools for researchers and librarians. Serials 588 Review, 46(1), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2020.1720897 589 Dorado, L. (2019). ORCID en CSIC: Ventajas de una integración institucional (Version 1). 590 ORCID. https://doi.org/10.23640/07243.11213969.v1 591 This version of the manuscript is a preprint and has yet to undergo peer review 20 Fernández-Marcial, V., González-Solar, L., & Vale, A. (2023). Is ORCID your ID? A case 592 study at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of the University of Porto. Learned 593 Publishing, 36, 564–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1562 594 Fernández-Ramos, A., & Barrionuevo, L. (2021). La difusión de la producción científica en el 595 ámbito de las Humanidades: el caso de la Universidad de León. Investigación 596 Bibliotecológica: Archivonomía, bibliotecología e información, 36(90), 47-65. 597 https://doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2022.90.58486 598 Fuhr, J., & Monnin, C. (2024). Researcher profile system adoption and use across discipline and 599 rank: A case study at the University of Manitoba. Quantitative Science Studies, 5(3), 600 573-592. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00319 601 Gomez, C. J., Herman, A. C., & Parigi, P. (2020). Moving more, but closer: Mapping the 602 growing regionalization of global scientific mobility using ORCID. Journal of 603 Informetrics, 14(3), 101044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101044 604 Haak, L.L., Fenner, M., Paglione, L., Pentz, E., & Ratner, H. (2012). ORCID: a system to 605 uniquely identify researchers. Learned publishing, 25(4), 259-264. 606 https://doi.org/10.1087/20120404 607 Hannak, A., Joseph, K., Larremore, D. B., & Cimpian, A. (2023). Field-specific ability beliefs 608 as an explanation for gender differences in academics’ career trajectories: Evidence 609 from public profiles on ORCID.Org. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 610 125(4), 681-698. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000348 611 Heusse, M.-D., & Cabanac, G. (2022), ORCID growth and field-wise dynamics of adoption: A 612 case study of the Toulouse scientific area. Learned Publishing, 35, 454-466. 613 https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1451 614 Houghton, F., & Foster, A. (2024). Resistance and power in Irish higher education: ORCID and 615 the monitored university. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 50(2), 102853. 616 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102853 617 Kim, H. (2025). Global mobility of the recent STEM postdoctoral workforce registered in 618 ORCID. Quantitative Science Studies, 6, 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00341 619 Larrieu, M., Boczoń, K., & Beau-Reder, J. (2024, May 29). How many UGA researchers have 620 an ORCID? Blog du pool d’ingénieurs. https://gates-data-shs.gricad-pages.univ621 grenoble-alpes.fr/blog/en/2024-05-29/ORCID-UGA-exploration 622 Marín-Arraiza, P. (2019). ORCID in the open science scenario: opportunities for academic 623 libraries. Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und 624 Bibliothekare, 72(2), 478-493. https://doi.org/10.31263/voebm.v72i2.2811 625 Marín-Arraiza, P. (2022). Madurez de sistemas de identificadores persistentes: Oportunidades 626 en el contexto español. Anuario ThinkEPI, 16. 627 https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2022.e16a06 628 This version of the manuscript is a preprint and has yet to undergo peer review 21 Marín-Arraiza, P., & Mejias, G. (2020). Identificadores persistentes: La adopción del orcid iD 629 en España. Anuario ThinkEPI, 14. https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2020.e14e06 630 Moreno-Delgado, A., Cárdenas-Bonett, M., De Gregorio-Vicente, Ó., & Montero-Díaz, J. 631 (2024). Mapping scientific mobility in leading Eurozone economies: Insights from 632 ORCID data analysis. Scientometrics, 129, 6889–6907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192633 024-05153-6 634 Morgan, M., & Eichenlaub, N. (2018). Author identifier analysis: Name authority control in two 635 institutional repositories. International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata 636 Applications. https://doi.org/10.23106/dcmi.952139036 637 ORCID (2025). ORCID Record Schema. https://info.orcid.org/documentation/integration638 guide/orcid-record 639 Pampel, H., Schrader, A. C., Vierkant, P., Dreyer, B., Glagla-Dietz, S., Schirrwagen, J., & 640 Summann, F. (2024). Lessons learned from ORCID DE—A project-driven initiative to 641 promote author identification in Germany. Learned Publishing, 37, 117-124. 642 https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1597 643 Porter, S. J. (2022). Measuring research information citizenship across ORCID practice. 644 Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 7, 779097. 645 https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.779097 646 Quinn, A. M. (2023). Promoting ORCID registration at Emory University's school of law. The 647 Journal of Academic Librarianship, 49(6), 102656. 648 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102656 649 Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 650 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631293023002004 651 Sixto-Costoya, A., Robinson-Garcia, N., Van Leeuwen, T., & Costas, R. (2021). Exploring the 652 relevance of ORCID as a source of study of data sharing activities at the individual653 level: A methodological discussion. Scientometrics, 126(8), 7149–7165. 654 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04043-5 655 Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2023). Equity for women in science: Dismantling systemic 656 barriers to advancement. Harvard University Press. 657 Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2020). ORCID: Issues and concerns about its use for academic 658 purposes and research integrity. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 67(4), 246659 250. 660 http://op.niscpr.res.in/index.php/ALIS/article/view/36267#:~:text=10.56042/alis.v67i4. 661 36267 662 Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2024). Discontinuity between journals' registration and submission 663 requirements for Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID). Nurse Author & 664 Editor, 34(2), e12061. https://doi.org/10.1111/nae2.12061 665 This version of the manuscript is a preprint and has yet to undergo peer review 22 Tran, C., & Lyon, J. (2017). Faculty use of author identifiers and researcher networking tools. 666 College & Research Libraries, 78(2), 171. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.2.171 667 Willinsky, J., & Pimentel, D. (2024). The publication facts label: A public and professional 668 guide for research articles. Learned Publishing, 37(2), 139-146. 669 https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1599 670 Xu, S. B., & Hu, G. (2024). Rethinking the author name ambiguity problem and beyond: the 671 case of the Chinese context. Accountability in Research, 1–24. 672 https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2349115 673 Yan, E., Zhu, Y., & He, J. (2020). Analyzing academic mobility of US professors based on 674 ORCID data and the Carnegie Classification. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(4), 1451675 1467. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00088 676 Zhang, L., & Kumaran, M. (2022). STEM Librarians’ Presence on Academic Profile Websites. 677 Science & Technology Libraries, 42(2), 247-263. 678 https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2022.2049954 679 Zhang, L., & Li, C. (2020). Investigating Science Researchers’ Presence on Academic Profile 680 Websites: A Case Study of a Canadian Research University. Issues In Science And 681 Technology Librarianship, 95. https://doi.org/10.29173/istl51 682 Declarations 683 Data availability statement 684 The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Zenodo at 685 http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17321870. 686 Conflict of interest 687 Authors have no conflict of interest relevant to this article. 688 Declaration of AI 689 The authors utilized ChatGPT (GPT-4) to review the manuscript, enhancing clarity and fluency 690 while correcting grammatical errors. 691