Trust through verification: Implementing STM’s researcher identity framework

Presentation slides (Marjorie Thibaut, ChronosHub)

Presentation slides (Andrew Heard, from IEEE)

Presentation slides (Richard Northover, STM Solutions)

The problem with current workflows

The webinar began with Richard Northover setting the scene.

“Many cases of fraud involve identity manipulation: fake accounts, impersonation, and so on,” he explained “And the thing is, that manipulation is relatively easy because of the way editorial workflows tend to be designed.”

For starters, many editorial systems require little more than a generic email address from someone before they can start submitting, reviewing, or even editing papers. It’s a measure that’s next-to-useless in weeding out bad actors.

Richard then gave a brief round-up of the work of STM’s Researcher Integrity Work & Finish Group, of which he’s the facilitator. The group is developing a framework that seeks to give publishers flexible tools to assess risk and add verification where it makes sense.

The framework cannot be one-size-fits-all. Instead, it must accommodate:

• Proportionality: Stronger checks for high-risk roles (e.g., guest editors) while keeping low-risk actions simple.
• Privacy and accessibility: Avoid unnecessary data collection and ensure global inclusivity.
• Accountability: Create feedback loops so fraudulent actors can be identified and consequences applied.

Publishers need to find the right balance

Andy Heard, from IEEE, gave his thoughts on the topic from a publishers’ point of view.

“The challenge for publishers is to maintain absolute trust in participants while minimizing friction for legitimate researchers in a process which is already somewhat cumbersome.”

His recommendations emphasized proportionate, risk-based measures. For example, a guest editor should be classified as a “high-risk” role and should undergo more rigorous identity checks than a submitting author.

He also expanded on some of the practicalities of verification:

• Verifcation should happen as early as possible in the process, and ideally, persist across different systems. Users shouldn’t need to reverify themselves when logging into submissions, peer review, production, etc.
• ORCID has a big role to play. But trust markers are a must—anyone can create an ORCID account.
• Andy was in favor of limiting the extent to which authors can suggest reviewers. Although this may be more practical in certain fields than others.

Designing a verification experience

So how might the STM framework be applied practically? ChronosHub is developing a solution, and Marjorie Thibault shared the working prototype.

It will live within the submission system interface and seeks to incorporate verification into publishing workflows, making the process feel like an improvement, not a barrier.

To do this, ChronosHub had developed the design around four principles:

• Gamification: By adding elements like achievement badges and progress bars.
• Transparency: Clear explanations of the benefits of verified profiles.
• Publisher autonomy: Publishers can decide themselves what verification steps, such as adding institutional affiliations, are mandatory or optional.
• Ease of use: The design needs to minimize friction, with verification broken into small, manageable steps.

What’s next?

ChronosHub aims to run some pilot programs for its verification experience. And STM will continue developing their framework. Next up, they plan to gather feedback from authors on their wants and needs. There’s some exciting stuff coming down the pipeline.