scientist
Let an agent handle scientists by field, affiliation, publications and identifiers, and attribute work accurately.
Research draft, second pass
A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.
written by Claude from model knowledge without web access - no source was read, every claim is a lead to verify
Researched by: Claude
Purpose and description
Let an agent handle scientists by field, affiliation, publications and identifiers, and attribute work accurately.
A person who conducts systematic research to build knowledge in a science or scholarly field, typically trained to doctoral level and working in academia, industry or government.
What it is for: Producing and communicating knowledge.
It can be conduct research; publish and peer review; teach and supervise; advise policy.
Distinguishing features
Conducts systematic research
Expertise is field-specific
Identified by ORCID and publications
Scholars in humanities are included in broad usage
What it looks like
No particular appearance; known through publications, affiliations and profiles.
How it is recognised
Publications and author identifiers
Institutional affiliation pages
Titles such as Dr or Professor, which are not proof of expertise in a topic
Related models
is a kind of - role
works in - fields
is affiliated with - employer
produces - research outputs
In practice
Families and kinds
natural and social scientists
humanities scholars
academic, industrial and government researchers
project and visiting scientists
Identifiers
ORCID 16 digits researcher identifier
Scopus Author ID numeric bibliographic
Standards and regulation
Research integrity codes such as the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
Research ethics rules
Failure modes and hazards
Misattributing work between people with similar names
Appeals to authority outside the person field
Research misconduct
Also called
+154
Where this came from
wikidata · CC0 1.0
Also registered as vr.tr.scientist
Drafted structure
Bundle to layer to finding to question, as the second pass will find it: 4 bundles · 8 layers · 8 findings · 16 questions.
Identity Which scientist.
Identifiers prevent misattribution.
Identifiers
ORCID and others.
Identifiers
Researcher identifiers.
- What is this scientist ORCID? provenance
- Are there others with the same name? boundary
Affiliation
Institution.
Affiliation
Current and past affiliations.
- Where do they work now? provenance
- Where have they worked before? provenance
Expertise Field and standing.
Expertise is specific to a field.
Field
Discipline.
Field
Field of expertise.
- In which field are they expert? definition
- Is the question within that field? boundary
Record
Publications and citations.
Record
Research record.
- What have they published? provenance
- Have any works been retracted? provenance
Integrity Research conduct.
Integrity underpins trust.
Conduct
Misconduct findings.
Conduct
Integrity record.
- Are there findings of misconduct, from which body? provenance
- What must not be said about unproven allegations? boundary
Interests
Conflicts of interest.
Interests
Declared interests.
- Which conflicts of interest are declared? provenance
- Who funds the research? provenance
Communication Engaging with the public.
Scientists communicate findings and uncertainty.
Statements
Public claims.
Statements
Public statements.
- What has this scientist said publicly, and in what capacity? provenance
- Does it reflect consensus? boundary
Contact
Reaching them.
Contact
Contact routes.
- How can they be contacted professionally? action
- What personal data must not be shared? boundary
What the second pass must settle
- Should scientists be linked to fields and outputs by ORCID?
- How should retractions be reflected?
- How should agents present expert disagreement?