Here is a great introductory presentation to ORCID, by Laurel L Haak, Executuve Director of ORCID:

Connecting Research and Researchers, is taken from the CrossRef Annual Meeting on 14th November 2012.

It outlines ORCID scope and principles, and addresses how ORCIS it tackling "The Problem":

Figshare goes from strength to strength in its offerings to researchers who want to put their data 'out there'.

Increasing research impact is the new Holy Grail for researchers. Since high profile researchers tend to get more grants and enjoy greater opportunities for collaboration, it makes sense for researchers to promote themselves as widely as they can - even if this seems like shameless self-promotion.

Total-Impact has been awarded $125k from the Sloan Foundation to expand its facilities for measuring the impact of research artefacts.

With research impact the Holy Grail for many researchers, the notion that one's work could be widely read and carefully saved yet be rarely cited is probably heartbreaking news.

Most academics are keen to have impact - either by advancing knowledge in their discipline or by seeing positive change come about in society, in economics or in public policy because of what they have done.

The UK-based Developing Research Excellence and Methods (DREaM) group aims to develop a network of library and information science researchers by bringing them together at five events over the 18-month duration of the project.

With the use of metrics of all kinds on the rise - in applications for grants, promotion, and tenure - the notion that impact factors can be gamed is worrying, if hardly surprising.

A new article in Science, Coercive Citation in Academic Publishing, looks at how the manipulation works and how widespread it might be.

The authors state:

The current system of measuring research impact, by traditional means like journal impact factors, may show how often a journal is cited, but says nothing about how its articles are really being used.