Mastodawn

@csmarcum
The NLM helpdesk at [email protected] is generally very responsive.

@csmarcum
But I think it might be a hard sell.... Lots of records, even recent ones, don't have ORCIDs, or don't have ORCIDs for all the authors.
In my case: of 69 papers in PubMed where I'm an author, only 11 have my ORCID attached in the PubMed record.

@csmarcum
Maybe the pattern is more extreme for me, because I'm never the corresponding author?
But also, I'm a librarian with a healthy respect for metadata, so I always tell the corresponding author, here's my ORCID, here's my affiliations.
The affiliations almost always make it in (if sometimes a bit mangled), but the ORCID rarely does.

@nyhan that's the problem with information policies giving primacy to a single author

@csmarcum Also, policies relying on the publisher as the only trusted source of publication metadata....
As an ORCID/PID advocate, you probably know that EuropePMC, unlike PubMed, happily accepts info from ORCID about articles added to one's ORCID profile via a search and link wizard. So, a EuropePMC query for my ORCID will retrieve a lot more of my work than a PubMed query for the same ORCID

@nyhan yeah and publishers are the least trustworthy source here as all of their intrinsic incentives are aligned only with anti-competitive information blocking practices.

@nyhan that's a better model indeed!

@nyhan right! NIH grantees and researchers are already required by federal research security policies to have PIDs. The metadata record should be linked to those pids - or have no endpoint otherwise because the current practice could confuse the public - in this case, it has already confused the crawlers and algorithms that are listing me as the author because of the apparent attribution. It's a solvable problem even if it's a hard problem.