Agricultural Sciences have become one of Brazil’s most efficient and sustainable research areas, where most publications benefit from scientific collaboration. The present study analyzes the influence of the designation as the corresponding author to researchers linked to Brazilian institutions on the impact of co-authored articles in the category Agronomy from the Web of Science for five-year periods from 2005 to 2019. We have observed a noticeable growth in the number of documents in collaboration between the five-year periods.

However, international partnership in the area still needs to be improved, although it is higher in non-academic institutions. The study verified that the documents published by Brazilian authors with international colleagues present a higher normalized citation impact in all types of institutions and five-year periods than documents with national collaboration. The total number of articles, their normalized citation impact, and the percentage of
documents as the corresponding author of academic institutions presented less variation than non-academic institutions. For Brazilian academic institutions, assuming the role of the corresponding author of co-authored articles in Agronomy has little influence on citation impact. As for non-academic institutions, we found an association between the corresponding authorship position within the scope of international collaboration and the higher impact of their scientific production. We point out some potential implications and briefly describe the limitations and future research., Peer reviewed

Este registro lleva adjunto tanto el preprint del artículo como la versión final publicada del mismo., Authorship is associated with scientific capital and prestige, and corresponding authorship is used in evaluation as a proxy for scientific status. However, there are no empirical analyses on the validity of the corresponding authorship metadata in bibliometric databases. This paper aims at looking at differences on the corresponding authorship metadata in Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, to investigate how the relationship between author position and corresponding authors varies by discipline and country and analyzing changes in the position of corresponding authors over time. We find that both, WoS and Scopus, have accuracy issues when it comes to assigning corresponding authorship. Although the number of documents with a reprint author has increased over time in both databases, however, WoS indexed more of those papers than Scopus, and there are significant differences between the two databases in terms of who the corresponding author is. Although metadata is not complete in WoS, corresponding authors are normally first authors with a declining trend over time, favoring middle and last authors, especially in Medical, Natural & Engineering fields. These results reinforce the importance of considering how databases operationalize and index concepts like corresponding authors, being this particularly important when are used in research assessment., The authors acknowledge funding from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (RESPONSIBLE project PID2021-128429NB-I00 and COMPARE project PID2020-117007RA-I00). Nicolas Robinson-Garcia is funded by a Ramón y Cajal grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (REF: RYC2019-027886-I)., Peer reviewed

Este conjunto de datos está sujeto a una licencia CC BY NC SA 4.0, [EN] This file contains the list of European Research Council (ERC) grants (Starting, Consolidator and Advanced) awarded during 2014-2020 to researchers affiliated with a Spanish host institution in order to study ORCID adoption among them. For each principal investigator, information was collected on their ORCID iD, the completeness of their ORCID record and the date of their last update. In addition, the researchers' output in WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar is provided., [ES] Este archivo contiene la lista de ayudas del Consejo Europeo de Investigación (ERC) (Starting, Consolidator y Advanced) concedidas durante 2014-2020 a investigadores afiliados a una institución española de acogida, con el objetivo de estudiar la adopción de ORCID entre ellos. Para cada investigador principal se recogió información sobre su iD ORCID, la completitud de su registro ORCID y la fecha de su última actualización. Además, se proporciona la producción de los investigadores en WoS, Scopus y Google Scholar., No

This study investigates gender disparities in the Spanish workforce's distribution in international and industry collaborative publications, highlighting common issues and potential differences. The work provides detailed information not only by gender but also by research field, research career, author position, and number of co-authors. The findings show a lower presence of women in both types of collaboration, even in 'Biomedical & Health Sciences', although there are more women in the total number of publications of this field. Women are under-represented in relevant authorship positions (first, last or corresponding author), possibly due to their concentration in the early career stages. A greater number of co-authors is associated with a decreased likelihood of holding relevant authorship positions, with some exceptions for women in international collaboration. This article aims to encourage responsible metrics by suggesting changes in evaluation policies to avoid indirect biases affecting gender and career progression., No

In the evolving landscape of scientific research, ORCID identifiers are essential for maintaining academic integrity and enhancing research visibility. This study proposes a methodological framework for identifying
and analyzing the presence and characteristics of researchers in a specific country in ORCID, using complementary data from OpenAlex to improve results. Our objectives were to develop a reliable method to identify ORCID records of researchers in Spain, study the frequency of profile updates, and investigate the most frequently filled metadata sections and common profile characteristics across disciplines. We identified
190,455 ORCID records of Spanish researchers and found high engagement with some metadata, particularly in the 'Employment' (73%) and 'Publications' (83%) sections. Additionally, 73% of records were actively maintained. The most common metadata combination included 'Works', 'Employment', and 'Education and Qualifications'. However, we noted significant variability and incomplete records across disciplines. The study highlights the need for more complete and frequently updated profiles, improved institutional integration, and strategic efforts to enhance ORCID adoption. These improvements could enhance the reliability of ORCID for tracking researcher mobility and academic trajectories., This work is part of the RESPONSIBLE project (Ref: PID2021-128429NB-I00) funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science (Ref: MCIN/AEI /10.13039/501100011033 FSE invierte en tu futuro, Peer reviewed

This study aims to provide an overview of the distribution of the Spanish scientific workforce focusing on differences in authorship position by gender, academic age, number of authors, and research field. The results show some degree of parity in younger age cohorts and areas such as biomedicine, but little participation of females in the oldest age cohort and areas such as mathematics. In addition, the presence of women undergoes significant changes in certain areas and decreases in oldest age cohorts. This circumstance leads to a very low probability of finding women or junior researchers in relevant authorship positions. Policymakers should be aware that there are inequalities in the scientific workforce that need to be considered when addressing/proposing scientific evaluation criteria., This work was supported by the State Research Agency, Spanish Ministry of Science, and Innovation, through the project RESPONSIBLE (PID2021-128429NB-I00) MCIN / AEI / 10.13039/501100011033 / The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Union (EU)., Peer reviewed

Este artículo está vinculado al conjunto de datos que se puede encontrar en http://hdl.handle.net/10261/350065, Personal identifiers have become essential for unambiguously identifying authors and their scholarly output. One of the top personal identifiers is ORCID because of its open, cross-national, cross-disciplinary nature. This study analyses ORCID adoption at two levels: (a) Spanish scientific articles in Web of Science (WoS), to explore ORCID presence in articles; and (b) European Research Council (ERC) grant recipients who are affiliated with a Spanish host institution, to explore the prevalence of ORCID-iDs, profile completion, and differences by gender, field, and funding scheme. Nearly 90% of Spanish scientific articles list at least one ORCID-iD, but only 14% of articles include an ORCID-iD for all authors. Implementation is therefore still limited, especially in the humanities. Concerning the micro-level, all ERC grantees have an ORCID-iD and an associated profile, which is generally public. Profiles include information in an average of four sections. ‘Works’ and ‘Employment’ are the sections most frequently completed. Fifty percent of profiles were updated in the last month, which suggests rapid updating. Factors influencing ORCID adoption and profile completion are discussed. Publisher and journal policies play a significant role by asking authors for ORCID-iDs and will be crucial in increasing the identifier's adoption., Peer reviewed

This research article delves into methodological challenges in scientometrics, focusing on errors stemming from the selection of classification schemes and document types. Employing two case studies, we examine the impact of these methodological choices on publication and citation rankings of institutions. We compute seven bibliometric indicators for over 8,434 institutions using 23 different classification schemes derived from Clarivate’s InCites suite, as well as including all document types versus only citable items. Given the critical role university rankings play in research management and their methodological controversies, our goal is to propose a methodology that incorporates uncertainty levels when reporting bibliometric performance in professional practice. We then delve into differences in error estimates within research fields as well as between institutions from different geographic regions. The findings underscore the importance of responsible metric use in research evaluation, providing valuable insights for both bibliometricians and consumers of such data, Peer reviewed

[EN] This study aims to make a longitudinal analysis of the changes regarding the results and resources used to assemble a research activity about 92 licensed Peruvian universities, in the framework of implementing the 2014 university reform policy. Data publication was obtained from Scopus and Scival while human resource data came from Concytec. The interrupted time series with a quasi-experimental design and a non-equivalent control group with regression analysis was used, considering the implementation of the university reform as the “treatment”. The results reveal an increase in university publications, especially in private corporate universities, as well as in the number of Renacyt researchers. On the other hand, the control group, composed of public research institutes, maintained a similar trend before and after the university reform, unlike the non-linear growth in university publications. There is also a decrease in the percentage of publications in international collaboration and in quartile 1 journals. Variations in the normalized impact are observed between the different groups of universities throughout the period of analysis. Limitations are presented and future lines of research and recommendations are suggested for those who make decisions in research management and those involved in scientific communication, [ES] El objetivo de este estudio es analizar longitudinalmente los cambios en los recursos y en los resultados de la actividad investigadora de 92 universidades peruanas licen-ciadas, en el marco de la implementación de la política de reforma universitaria de 2014. Los datos sobre publicaciones se obtuvieron de Scopus y Scival mientras que los referentes a recursos humanos provienen de Concytec. Se empleó la serie temporal interrumpida con diseño cuasiexperimental y grupo de control no equivalente con análisis de regresión, considerando la implementación de la reforma universitaria como el “tratamiento”. Los resultados revelan un aumento de publicaciones en las universidades, especialmente en las privadas societarias, así como en el número de investigadores Renacyt. Por otro lado, el grupo de control, compuesto por los insti-tutos públicos de investigación, mantuvo una tendencia similar antes y después de la reforma universitaria, a diferencia del crecimiento no lineal en las publicaciones de las universidades. Asimismo, se observa una disminución en el porcentaje de publica-ciones en colaboración internacional y en revistas situadas en el cuartil 1. Se observan variaciones en el impacto normalizado entre los distintos grupos de universidades a lo largo del período de análisis. Se presentan las limitaciones y se sugieren futuras líneas de investigación y recomendaciones dirigidas a quienes toman decisiones en la gestión de la investigación y a los participantes en la comunicación científica, Esta investigación fue apoyada por la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos con RR N° 005557–2022-R/UNMSM y código de proyecto E22030961 y por el Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación de España MCIN/ AEI / 10.13039/501100011033 / ERDF, EU, con el proyecto RESPONSIBLE PID2021-128429NB-I00, Peer reviewed

Also available at Zenodod, OSF Preprints, SocArXiv, This study analyzes the adoption and use of ORCID compared to other researcher profile systems across research domains and job categories at the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). The sample consists of authors affiliated with CSIC who published at least one publication between 2012 and 2022. The results reveal that the adoption rate of ORCID was lower than for Scopus Author ID and ResearcherID, but higher than for Google Scholar profiles. The ORCID profiles show a gender gap, with men registering more profiles and
completing more fields. Permanent researchers adopted ORCID to a greater extent and were among those who completed the most sections. Natural Resources and Social Science had the highest profile number, while Humanities displayed the most complete profiles. In addition, a rapid increase in ORCID registrations was observed in the early years following its implementation, followed by a gradual decline, while ORCID profile updates remained consistent over time. We hope our findings could inform institutional strategies to enhance the use of persistent identifiers, strengthen data completeness, and address the gender gap in ORCID adoption, ultimately supporting the CSIC’s commitment to open science and research integrity., No

[EN] The dataset includes bibliographic data from publications affiliated with the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) for the period 2018-2022 that are assigned to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) number 5 -Gender Equality-. The assignment has been made according to the different procedures used by the databases consulted (WoS, Scopus and OpenAlex), as well as using the OSDG tool. The dataset indicates whether there is an assignment to OSD 5 for each of the documents in each of these resources. In addition, the SDG5_confirmed column is included, which reflects the result of the manual review aimed at validating whether the document is effectively related to this goal. The set also provides basic information on each publication: DOI, title, year of publication, source, document type and document identifier in the database., [ES] El conjunto incluye los datos bibliográficos de las publicaciones con filiación del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) para el periodo 2018-2022 que están asignadas al objetivo de desarrollo sostenible (ODS) número 5 -Igualdad de género-. La asignación se ha realizado según los diferentes procedimientos utilizados por las bases de datos consultadas (WoS, Scopus y OpenAlex), así como mediante la herramienta OSDG. En el conjunto de datos se indica si hay asignación al OSD 5 de cada uno de los documento en cada uno de estos recursos. Además, se incluye la columna SDG5_confirmed, que refleja el resultado de la revisión manual destinada a validar si el documento está efectivamente relacionado con este objetivo. El conjunto proporciona también información básica de cada publicación: DOI, titulo, año de publicación, fuente, tipo documental e identificador del documento en la base de datos., Peer reviewed

This study examines gender disparities in authorship and collaboration within the Spanish scientific workforce, focusing on international and industry co-authored publications. Drawing on a comprehensive dataset of over 165,000 publications and more than 170,000 identified authors affiliated with Spanish institutions, the analysis explores how gender interacts with authorship position, research field, career stage, and team size. The results reveal a consistent under-representation of women in both types of collaboration, particularly in key authorship roles (first, last, and corresponding author). While women are more active at early career stages, their visibility in leadership roles tends to diminish over time, especially as the number of co-authors increases. Field-specific patterns show that even in highly feminized disciplines, such as Biomedical & Health Sciences, women are less likely to appear in prominent authorship positions. These findings raise important concerns about current research assessment practices that rely heavily on byline position as a proxy for contribution or leadership. The study contributes to ongoing discussions on responsible metrics and proposes policy recommendations to promote more equitable evaluation systems that reflect the collaborative and diverse nature of research careers., Peer reviewed

There has been a notable increase in bibliometric research studying gender inacademia. This narrative review aims to organize and synthesize this extensivebody of work to uncover new insights into gender disparities in science. Webegin by analyzing key methodological elements, including gender assignmenttechniques, units of analysis, and causality issues. Next, we identify and catego-rize the main findings of the literature into three groups: differences in acade-mia, causes behind these differences, and their primary consequences. Finally,we point out gaps in the literature and propose new lines of inquiry to addressthese gaps. These proposals include more rigorous gender assignment algo-rithms, fostering comparability of studies, exploring a broader range of topics,and improving the interpretability and context of results when studying gender., This work is part of the COMPARE project (Ref:PID2020-117007RA-I00) and the RESPONSIBLE project(Ref: PID2021-128429NB-I00), both funded by the Span-ish Ministry of Science (Ref: MCIN/AEI /10.13039/501100011033 FSE invierte en tu futuro). ElviraGonz alez-Salm on is currently supported by an FPU grantfrom the Spanish Ministry of Science (Ref:FPU2021/02320). Nicolas Robinson-Garcia is currentlysupported by a Ramon y Cajal grant from the SpanishMinistry of Science (Ref: RYC2019-027886-I), Peer reviewed

González-Salmón, E., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Robinson-Garcia, N., & Nane, G. (2026). How to achieve gender parity in science? Providing global evidence on key educational and economic drivers. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18412269, Gender parity in science depends on a complex interplay of social, economic and educational variables. In this study, we compile a longitudinal dataset at the country level combining scientific bibliographic data from Dimensions, with the World Bank Open Data (WBOA), and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS). Our goal is to identify conditions and pathways that could lead to gender parity in different world regions, by applying time-series forecasting methods (ARIMA and Exponential Smoothing), along with correlation analysis and Bayesian networks. While results vary by region, one recurring recommendation emerging from our models is the need to increase the number of researchers and the percentage of women graduating in Engineering, Manufacturing, and Construction, as this appears to be a critical driver for reducing gender disparities in the scientific workforce., Peer reviewed

González-Salmón, E., & Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z. (2026). Triangle of Inequalities: Gender, Research Funding and Open Access in Spain. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18220752, Gender inequalities in science are widely documented, yet their persistence is often examined
through isolated dimensions such as productivity, funding or publishing practices. This study provides
an integrated analysis of how funding patterns, team structures and Open Access practices are associated
with women’s participation in scientific production in Spain. Using large-scale bibliometric data from
Web of Science (2008–2017), we analyse publications with at least one Spanish author, combining
information on author gender, funding acknowledgements, authorship roles and Open Access status
across five broad scientific fields.
The results reveal that gender inequalities are not driven by a single mechanism, but emerge
from the interaction of structural factors. Women are underrepresented in internationally funded
publications and in senior authorship positions, while they appear more frequently as first authors.
Mixed-gender teams consistently show more balanced participation and higher productivity for women,
highlighting collaboration as a key equalising context. Open Access uptake is shaped by funding
availability rather than gender, and incomplete funding information remains a major obstacle for
monitoring equity and visibility.
This study is particularly timely in the context of ongoing reforms in research assessment. By
offering integrated, system-level evidence, it contributes to debates on responsible metrics, funding
transparency and inclusive assessment practices. Rather than proposing new evaluative criteria, the
findings provide diagnostic insights to support evidence-informed reforms aimed at reducing structural
gender inequalities in science, No

Evaluating research contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) remains challenging, particularly for SDG 5 (Gender Equality), which is cross-cutting, thematically complex and apparently underrepresented in scientific output. This study evaluates the abilities and limitations of automated classification systems (Web of Science, Scopus, OpenAlex and OSDG) in identifying SDG 5 related publications, through a case study of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) publications between 2018 and 2022. A mixed approach, combining bibliometric analysis and expert review, examined overlaps among sources, alignment with SDG 5 targets and thematic relevance. Results reveal very low agreement across tools, with only 35% of suggested publications validated as truly related. Most addressed only a few specific targets and semantic ambiguities and certain “two-sided” concepts/areas whose presence did not always indicate alignment with the goal. Findings highlight the need for hybrid approaches that integrate automated detection with expert qualitative evaluation to ensure rigorous SDG evaluation, This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation through the RESPONSIBLE Project (PID2021-128429NB-I00) funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Union (EU)., Núria Bautista Puig is funded by a Ramón y Cajal grant (Ref: RYC2022-037076-I) from MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by FSE+, Peer reviewed

This literature review examines the application of informetric methods to assess diversity within the scientific workforce, focusing on recent advances in author name disambiguation, researcher profiling, and the evaluation of individual-level metrics. The study traces the evolution of quantitative approaches, from traditional productivity metrics to modern multidimensional models that incorporate contextual factors such as career trajectory, research practices, and social engagement. Emphasizing methodological innovations, the review explores the potential of advanced algorithms and new data sources (e.g., OpenAlex, ORCID) to offer a nuanced understanding of diversity in science. The review highlights gaps in the current literature, particularly the need to account for diverse individual characteristics, including gender, ethnicity, and team dynamics, and suggests pathways for future research. The findings contribute to ongoing discussions in the field of scientometrics regarding responsible research assessment and the development of equitable evaluation frameworks., South African DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (SciSTIP), Peer reviewed

Purpose: The Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID) is becoming the de facto standard for researcher identification in scholarly communication, providing a persistent unique identifier and a registry that functions as a digital CV. The purpose of this study is to analyse the ORCID profiles of a selected group of leading researchers to analyse creation, completion, and updating of their records, with particular attention to the Works section., Design/methodology/approach: We focus on the 357 grants awarded by the European Research Council (ERC) to researchers with a Spanish host institution between 2014 and 2020, for whom a high degree of ORCID adoption has been reported. Data included in their ORCID records were downloaded and the completion and dynamics of Personal Information and Activities sections are studied. Differences by domain and researcher career stage are explored., Findings: All ERC researchers have an ORCID iD, and in most cases, their records are publicly available. ORCID profile completion is quite high in the Activities sections, particularly Works and Employment, and lower in the Personal Information sections. Most of the profiles were created by the users themselves and had been updated recently (75 % in the last three months). Sections that allow for automatic input tend to show higher completion rates and are more recently updated. Although ORCID accepts all kind of research outputs, journal articles form the majority (84 %) in our study. Works are added to profiles mainly by commercial entities (especially Elsevier and Clarivate), with non-profit organisations (e.g., Crossref) a distant second. Only 10 % of works are included by researchers themselves., Research limitations: As the study examines a particular group of elite researchers, their practices regarding profile completion and updating cannot be generalized to other researcher populations., Practical implications: ERC-funded researchers show quite high engagement with the ORCID system, but there is uneven completion of record sections and data quality issues that need to be addressed to improve the system and consolidate identifier use., Originality/value: ORCID record completion, work collection and updating behaviour have been insufficiently explored to date. The study of a population of leading researchers helps reveal ORCID record completion practices, as well as data quality issues and controversial approaches to work collection., This work is part of the RESPONSIBLE project (PID2021-128429NB-I00) funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/ERD,EU., Peer reviewed

Purpose: This article assumes that embracing the values of open science is central to the ongoing reform of research assessment. Two main objectives are pursued: (1) to analyze whether responsible research assessment (RRA) and open science principles are being implemented in the Severo Ochoa (SO) call for proposals for centers of excellence in Spain; (2) to study the engagement of a selection of centers holding the excellence seal with open science practices., Methodology: First, a longitudinal study of the content of the SO calls from 2011 to 2025 is conducted to identify changes reflecting adoption of the RRA and open science principles. Second, the open science practices of the selected centers are analyzed across two operational dimensions: i) open scientific knowledge and infrastructure and ii) openness to non-academic actors, Findings: The call has evolved over the years, adapting its evaluation criteria to the principles of RRA: drastic decrease of the role of publication-based indicators, wider range of contributions considered and use of narrative CVs. Open science practices are increasingly promoted, particularly in centers’ strategic plans. Centers with the seal of excellence show higher levels of open publications and societal impact than the average in their fields. These centers show quite a strong commitment to the values of open science, although there is still room for improvement., Research limitations: The analysis is limited by the lack of solid, reliable sources and indicators for some open science practices. Enhanced standardization and interoperability of information sources are needed to generate reliable indicators for monitoring these practices., Practical implications: The RRA principles are being integrated into the SO call, but some open science practices still require greater promotion. This is relevant, because centers of excellence can set the benchmarks for the country’s entire scientific community., Originality/value: Studying how RRA and open science principles are implemented by funding agencies is crucial, as funders have a clear influence on researchers’ behavior., This work is part of the RESPONSIBLE project (PID2021-128429NB-I00) funded by Spanish Ministry
of Science and Innovation (MCIN) / AEI / 10.13039/ 501100011033 / ERDF, EU., Peer reviewed

[EN] Dataset of ORCID profiles of ERC grant recipients (2014–2020 calls) hosted at Spanish institutions. The dataset includes the time intervals between the creation and last modification dates of the different profile sections and the data download date; the profile creation method; the source of the data included in the Works section; and the time lag between the publication date of each work and its inclusion in the ORCID profile., [ES] Conjunto de datos de los perfiles ORCID de investigadores ERC (convocatorias 2014-2020) con lugar de trabajo en España en el que se incluyen los lapsos de tiempo entre la fecha de creación/modificación de las secciones de los perfiles y la fecha de descarga de los datos; el método de creación de los perfiles; la fuente de procedencia de los datos de los trabajos (Works); y la demora en la inclusión de dichos trabajos., Peer reviewed

[EN] Dataset containing the supplementary tables for the article “Data quality in the Works section of ORCID: bibliodiversity, inclusion delay, and document duplication”, published in the Revista Española de Documentación Científica. It includes information on the distribution of documents by subject area, document type and source, as well as an analysis of their trends over time, inclusion delays, modifications made to records, external identifiers used and the presence of duplicate documents in the Works section of the ORCID profiles of ERC researchers with Spanish affiliation (2014–2020)., [ES] Conjunto de datos con las tablas suplementarias al artículo "Calidad de datos en la sección Works de ORCID: bibliodiversidad, demora de inclusión y duplicación de documentos", publicado en la Revista Española de Documentación Científica. Incluye información sobre la distribución de documentos por áreas temáticas, tipologías documentales y fuentes de procedencia, así como análisis de su evolución temporal, demora de inclusión, modificaciones realizadas en los registros, identificadores externos utilizados y presencia de documentos duplicados en la sección Works de los perfiles ORCID de investigadores ERC con filiación española (2014-2020)., Peer reviewed

[EN] Dataset derived from the ORCID public snapshot (September 2023) and OpenAlex snapshot (April 2024) to study ORCID adoption, profile activity and metadata presence among researchers associated with Spain. It contains profile-level indicators, employment-affiliation histories, an OpenAlex table of Spanish authors and a publication-to-topic hierarchy map. Records were retrieved through ORCID affiliation/country metadata and last known Spanish affiliation in OpenAlex, then merged, deduplicated and classified., [ES] Conjunto de datos derivado de los volcados públicos de ORCID (septiembre de 2023) y OpenAlex (abril de 2024) para estudiar la adopción de ORCID, la actividad y la presencia de metadatos en perfiles de investigadores vinculados con España. Incluye indicadores a nivel de perfil, historiales de afiliación laboral, una tabla de autores españoles de OpenAlex y un mapa de publicaciones a la jerarquía temática de OpenAlex. Los registros se recuperaron mediante afiliación/país en ORCID y última afiliación española en OpenAlex; posteriormente se fusionaron, deduplicaron y clasificaron., This work is part of the RESPONSIBLE project (Ref: PID2021-128429NB-I00) funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science (Ref: MCIN/AEI /10.13039/501100011033 ) FSE invierte en tu futuro, Peer reviewed