 Thank you all for joining us today for this introduction to pre-prints. I will be discussing what pre-prints are all about, how the Center for Open Science and our partners are collaborating to facilitate community-led scholarly communications. My name is Matt Spitzer and I'm the community manager at the Center for Open Science. And we're excited for today's topic because we've been seeing a lot of attention for pre-prints lately from funders, from publishers, and a lot of others within the scholarly communications world. The one on the call today is on defaulted to listen only mode, but please use the Q&A feature in the meeting interface to submit your questions as we go along. We'll all monitor that actively throughout the webinar. We'll spend about 35 minutes covering several topics and then spend at least 10 minutes answering questions that come up during and at the end of the conversation. Starting us off today will be Philip Cohen. He's a sociologist from the University of Maryland College Park. And Philip is also the eighth founding member of Social Archive, the Open Archive of Social Sciences. Philip's going to speak about pre-prints, post-prints, what they are, what the benefits of pre-prints are for researchers. And he'll address some common concerns that researchers have, such as how one can check publisher guidelines on posting pre-prints. I'll then follow Philip and talk a little bit briefly about the role that the Center for Open Science is playing in facilitating community-led communications and the technology that we're using to build OSF pre-prints. And then my colleague, Courtney Soderberg, will show you how to use OSF pre-prints for both search and for submitting a pre-print to the services. And with that, I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to Philip Cohen from Social Archive to get us started. And Philip, if you want to go ahead and grab the screen share, you will get this. Thank you, Matt. Also thanks Courtney and Jarlene at Center for Open Science for organizing this. I'm really happy to have the chance to be here and talk about pre-prints and the OSF pre-prints in Social Archive in particular. I'm going to start with... I'm going to start with, fencing my slides, a brief definition on discussion on terms, working papers, pre-prints, post-prints, some overlapping terms and some ambiguity there. I'll give some of the rationale for why people want to share pre-prints, why I think you should want to share your papers, and then something about the strategy of when is appropriate, when is most advantageous, and finally, I'll go over a couple of common concerns and by then I'll be brief on those and let people express their actual concerns. But I kind of foreshadow some of the things that have come up a lot in this discussion so far. Okay, you could call them all papers if you want, but in different disciplines, in different corners of academia, there are different definitions that people use and sometimes it can be confusing. We shouldn't be too hung up on these. The important thing is you're sharing your research and getting the benefits of doing that, but it is useful to know what people are talking about. First term, working papers. These are usually understood to be a completed draft of something that's ready to read, but something that has not yet been peer reviewed, and the implication with the term working is that there are additional revisions to come. So you can read and share a working paper, you can learn from it, you can benefit from the collaboration, you can get feedback, but it's generally understood that the paper is not in its final state when people use the term working paper. Pre-prints, on the other hand, there's actually a lot of definitions and they overlap with working papers to some degree, so in some disciplines pre-prints would include the entirety of what I just described as working papers. In some there, some people use the term more narrowly to refer to a finished draft which is specifically ready to be peer reviewed, so it is about to enter the journal publishing stream. And then as you move along, there are additional uses of pre-print that refer to a paper which has been accepted but is not yet in print. And you will see, for example, some journals have a list of papers that they publish, they post online that are not yet in print quote in the magazine. Important concept here is that for some disciplines and specifically in the biosciences I believe, they specifically mean not peer reviewed when they say pre-print and that can be an important distinction as far as the norms of the discipline. And finally, post-prints, post-prints you can think of as the open access version of a published paper, so the paper has been peer reviewed, it's been accepted, and it's either in the pipeline or it's already come out in the journal, is understood to be peer reviewed. And depending on the author agreement and the terms that the journal sets, this may or may not include the journal copy editing and formatting and so on, but it is understood to be the final version, more or less final version, the accepted version at least of a paper. And this is often just a way of distributing a free copy, an open access copy of a paper which is going to be or is already behind a paywall and therefore has limited access. So I'll move to talking about the rationale here a little. Generally, I'm going to make the case and this is the point of the pre-prints effort is that it's more efficient, it's more engaging, it's more inclusive, so it makes our work better and I'll talk a little bit about how that works specifically. An important angle is time. There's a very unfortunate rhythm that many of us have adapted to in academia, which is that you work and work and work on something and when you're finally ready, it's done and you're happy and proud and ready to start having its impact, you send it off and wait for months when nothing happens. And how many times have I been at a conference or been talking to somebody and they say, boy, I really have a terrific paper, you're going to love it when it comes out or it's under review now and it's terrific. Well, the point of pre-prints is to just skip that step, not skip as in you don't do it, but to skip the waiting part, to get right to the part of sharing it with the people who actually want to read it, while often if you want going through the process of peer review also. A key aspect of the rationale for pre-prints is simply access. We want our work to be evaluated, to be judged by our peers in the peer review process, but we also wanted to reach people. It's disheartening when we work on something, especially something with public funding, but all of us who have jobs in academia are funded by the public one way or the other, and to have our work come out and be locked up to be not accessible to people who might want to read it. And often we don't notice the paywall when we're on a campus that subscribes to everything, but more and more people are chafing at the paywall and the pre-prints is an important way to help get beyond that and open up access to our work. And then the engagement inclusivity aspect is very important because it's a key part of both increasing sort of accountability and effectiveness in our work, but also really improving our scholarly engagement, our engagement with other researchers, with interested parties in the public, and with the people we don't know yet who may be interested in our work. And the goal of pre-prints is partly to be more efficient, be quicker, open access, and then also to specifically facilitate the connections that we can build by getting work out earlier, faster, and more open. And reclaiming the process of publishing by that, I mean, we don't have to subject ourselves strictly to the legacy system of publishing which has built in delays and inefficiencies and costs. We can use that system if we want to, but we don't need to, and we can do our work more efficiently and more engagingly and more inclusively if we share our work earlier. Okay, so when to share a paper? I think you can sort of, as you can see from this, I think you should share papers all the time, but specifically to think about it for a particular project when you've reached a point where you've got something worked out but you're ready to have some feedback or engagement when you're ready to identify potential collaborators and get their feedback. A key point for a lot of people is when you have to have a draft ready to submit to a conference. You're ready to have strangers look at it in that setting, so you may as well have a broader array of people looking at it. The same applies to when you're submitting it to a journal. We can talk a little bit about the fears that people have when doing that later. When a paper is accepted, it's especially rewarding. You can say to people, you can put on your social media or in public various places, look, I've had a paper accepted, it's been judged good by the peer review process, and here's a free open access copy of it. That's a very powerful use of preprints. And then after the paper is published, the open access version, the postprint, which can really just be the preprint updated after the paper is accepted, is a way to make it available and accessible to people beyond the paywall, as I mentioned earlier. So I'll talk about a few common concerns that worry people when they think about taking the step of sharing their work openly outside the journal system, and we'll see if we can address some of those. Excuse me. Some people really are concerned that their work is not good enough yet, basically. And people might not say this exactly in those terms, but I think that's sort of what comes out. And we use the peer review system to give us that reassurance, but I think it's okay to be proud of the work you've done to say, look, there may be mistakes, we're going to go through the peer review process, but this is good enough to talk about, it's good enough to show, and we're going to learn from our mistakes and catch them as early as possible and try to improve it together. There's a broad concern that by publishing preprints and working papers, we might make them ineligible for publication in our favorite journals or the most important journals in our discipline later. It is generally the case, however, that this does not happen. There are some journals that have restrictive rules where they won't allow publication of papers that have already been shared, but this is not the case with most journals, and if it is the case with one of your favorite journals, I would recommend having a different favorite journal, because they don't have your best interest or the best interest of science in mind if they have that policy, my opinion. The American Sociological Association, for example, in my discipline has an explicit policy that they will consider in published papers that have been shared publicly as long as they have not already been peer reviewed, so that's the distinction. The other major concern that a lot of people have is that their ideas will be stolen if they share the papers openly. I think this is completely backwards, but very understandable because people are really afraid, and they're also, most of us, we're raised in a system where journal publication is how you own an idea, but we post papers publicly on social archive or OSF preprints or one of the other sites with a timestamp, it's public, it has our name on it, we can share it widely, and this is really our best protection. The people stealing your work is a violation of norms, and we police that by challenging it when it occurs. The best way to do that is to have proof that it's your idea. If people literally take your work and put their name on it, that's fraud, and that can happen with the journal publication paper just as well as with the preprints, so that's sort of a separate issue. Finally, two more points. One is that there's a sense, especially because of the proliferation of low quality open access journals, that open access itself is suspect, that it is something that desperate people do to show off their work when they can't get it published legitimately in the journal system. I think my only response to that is to suggest, to ask, to encourage us to change that culture, to get the word out that openness is better, better for science, better for the communities we serve, and better for our careers, and to not be so worried that if I do something, if my work is in the vicinity of some work that's not good, it will taint my work. Our work rises and falls based on the responses of the people who read it, who understand it, who need it for their work, and we can reap the benefits of openness without worrying about the status of the genre, so to speak. Of course, over time, we hope that this will change. I'm not going to talk a lot about the issue of licensing, but there is also a concern that someone will make money off your work if you share it publicly. No offense, this is actually quite unlikely. However, if it does happen, really, that's good. If you're planning to submit it to a for-profit or an association journal published by a for-profit publisher, you're already making money for somebody else and not yourself. We get our money mostly from our jobs, from our grants and so on, and we want our work to be as shared widely as possible. Remember, if you post a paper with a non-restrictive license and somebody takes it and uses it and puts it in a book or something and finds a way to sell it, that's not hurting you because it's not money you would have made in the other way, and the paper is still available for free. So there's a limit on how much they can do with that. It's not like they get to take it down off the site after they use it. But anyway, this is quite unlikely. We do recommend using a non-restrictive license like a CC0 license and then policing the use of our work through professional norms rather than through law. And again, if somebody steals it and puts their name on it, that's fraud and we have protections for that. And finally, there is the concern, and sad as it sounds, there are a lot of academics who write papers and then they're afraid that they don't have the right to share them themselves. The author agreements we sign are dense and difficult and they're intimidating. So I'm actually not going to demonstrate this. I'm sorry I don't have time. But if you Google Sherpa Romeo, you find a very nice searchable database which will show you the policies that apply to almost any academic journal. Your author agreement is ultimately what governs of what you can post. But the Sherpa Romeo database is a good guide for the standard policies and journals. And you're going to find that almost every journal allows posting of some version or another, especially before it's been accepted and published for sure. But most things can be shared in one form or another. Okay, so I'm going to wrap up there. We'll take your questions. I just want to take 10 seconds to plug a conference we're having at the University of Maryland in October. Open scholarship at the Social Sciences. The deadline is coming up so go to socialopen.org to submit a paper. And finally to contact me, there's my information below. Visit Social Archive on the OSF preprint site and I'll look forward to the discussion. And thanks again to COS for organizing this. Well, I'm going to spend just a couple minutes talking about the role that the Center for Open Science is playing here with preprints. As hopefully some of you know, the Center for Open Science is a non-profit technology organization that's dedicated to improving the alignment of scientific values and scientific practices. So really along those lines that Phillip was talking about, which is really changing the norms and changing the culture around some of these practices. And you can learn more about many of the other programs and initiatives that we have at COS.io. Specifically, the Center for Open Science is contributing to the adoption of preprints with the extension of the Open Science framework, which is a free open source infrastructure that we are the developers of. OSF preprints is an open preprint repository built as a modular framework to provide additional integrated intern key branded services for any scholarly community like Social Archive, which Phillip is a part of. So the OSF at its core, you know, behind the OSF preprints is a research collaboration platform for supporting the documentation, the archiving and sharing of data materials and the diversity of outputs that arise in the entire research lifecycle. And we connect to a lot of other services that you probably use in your day-to-day activities to conduct your research. And so as such, preprints can really be seen as a natural extension of that research lifecycle output and can easily be used independently of the OSF or in combination with the OSF project as Courtney will show you here after my few slides. But there are some really, there's some key features about our approach with OSF preprints that I think will provide some benefits to the wider scholarly community without creating additional silos and information. So I just wanted to cover those real quickly so that you have a sense of the way we're thinking about the infrastructure that we're building and how it relates to other services that are out there. First off, the OSF preprints is using an aggregated service. So behind the OSF preprints is a tool called Share and it aggregates information across preprint services. Currently, 13 are integrated so far. This includes both those that are built on the open science framework as well as those that are out there and hosted by other groups such as Archive, BioArchive, PeerJ, and REPEC. And this currently represents access to over two million preprints all searchable at one site at OSF preprints. Second, it's brandable. Any group that wants to offer preprint service can launch and manage a fully functional service for their community. And when I say manage, I don't mean the technical side, that's the part that we take on but manage the community, the education, and the promotion of the service within your scholarly community. So while we offer OSF preprints as a general preprint service that accepts emissions from any domain of scholarship, the real power comes from this public infrastructure that is supporting branded services run by the communities themselves such again with Social Archive and Phillips Group. So far, we have six branded services in production. So Social Archive for the social sciences, PSI Archive for psychology, Engineer Archive for engineering. And in addition, we've had our partners launch AgriCive for agricultural sciences, BITS which is a group out of Berkeley for the social science research methodology, and most recently Law Archive for legal scholarship. Across these new services, more than 2,000 preprints have already been posted in the last several months and growth is accelerating. In the coming weeks, we'll be adding six new preprint services. These are the ones that so far are scheduled to be released and we have more in the works to cover paleontology, marine research, contemplative sciences, research and focused ultrasound, and the library information services. In addition, it's also very important to know that OSF Preprints is a free and open source tool. OSF Preprints is public goods infrastructure and all of our code is available at the Center for Open Science GitHub repo. So what's next? The next major release for OSF Preprints will be a moderation review layer. Preprint communities will certainly be defining their own moderation and review standards. Some services may offer very lightweight moderation services like Bio Archive and Archive do today, but others may want to offer more rigorous review. Some may offer both pre and post moderation and some may stay completely open. Some may experiment with different forms of transparency in the moderation process, but the most important thing is the goal is flexibility to facilitate control and self-direction by each community that best fits their norms and practices for their discipline. And as a result, this will encourage direct engagement by researchers and experimentation of the scholarly communication pipeline by communities of researchers. This is already fostering collaboration and sharing between communities. I know, for instance, Phil and others working on some of these other groups like Sci Archive and Engineering Archive are collaborating on a lot of really interesting ideas and best practices. So what it all means? The Center for Open Sciences approach and mission to increase openness, integrity and reproducibility of scholarly research by building public goods like Preprint's infrastructure provides substantial benefits for the scholarly community. Probably number one is deduplication. So as a modular and open source project, there's no need for redundant development of infrastructures. New capabilities are developed for one use case and it instantly benefits the entire community of users. Each one of these groups doesn't have to go out and build infrastructure from scratch in order to serve their community. That also provides an economy of scale. So everything we do is reusable and shared and it's less expensive to run and maintain, potentially by orders of magnitude. So everything we do is parallelized across each one of our branded services and new groups that come forward can reap that benefit. The deployment of expertise is a really critical factor here. So developers focus on the deployment of our secure and robust scalable enterprise infrastructure which leads the scholarly communication experts to focus on the process, the education, the promotion of Preprint's. You don't have to become a technology or infrastructure expert in order to you know help foster Preprint's within your community. And last innovation. So the open infrastructure it lowers the barriers significantly for entry and gives groups the freedom to experiment with scholarly communication practices while leveraging a robust infrastructure that supports both new and traditional models. So we really appreciate any feedback that you have on this endeavor and we certainly welcome collaboration with any scholarly communication experts out there to support a variety of use cases for Preprint's moderation and other publication practices. And of course if you would like to launch a Preprint service for your community just be in touch. My email address is here on the screen and we'd love to talk to you and I can certainly go into a way more detail on the process and the steps to go from just having the idea for Preprint service to actually launching one and it's actually a lot easier than you think. So with that I'm going to hand it over to Courtney to do a walkthrough of actually using hands-on using OSF Preprint's for search and submission. All right thanks Matt. So I'm going to go ahead and show you all kind of how you go about posting a Preprint as well as searching Preprints using OSF Preprints. So just let me share my screen really quickly. So everybody should be seeing my OSF Preprint's slide. So actually the first thing I want to do is go ahead and check Sherpa Romeo that site that Phil was talking about to make sure that I can post on the Preprint or postprint. So if you Google sherpa slash Romeo it should be the first one that comes up but it's sherpa.ac.uk slash Romeo and so I can just look at the title of the journal either that I'm thinking about publishing my paper in or if it's a postprint that I've already published my paper in. So I'm going to look up psychological bulletin. I'm going to search and then what you can see is it gives me kind of indications of yes, cyclotin allows Preprints. It allows postprints but it does not allow me to post the publisher's finalized version. So I can't post the copy edited version of the paper but I can post that last manuscript version that I sent to them and then it gives me some very particular information about kind of specific things that I need to do. So I have to for example link in the publisher's version of the DOI. But this is all pretty standard. It looks like I am able to post the Preprint of an article that I published in cyclotin a couple years back. So I'm going to go back to OSF Preprints. So as Matt mentioned OSF Preprints is kind of the general Preprint server. I can put Preprints from any discipline I want in here because this is particularly a psychology article. I'm actually going to scroll down and use Sci Archive which is the psychology domain specific Preprint server. So I'm going to go ahead and click Add a Preprint and then I have two options. If that manuscript copy already existed on an OSF project I could click Connect Preprint to existing OSF project and that would allow me to search through all the projects that I already have on the OSF. However this file doesn't exist on the OSF already. It doesn't have a project related to it so I'm going to say Upload New Preprint. So I am going to drag my PDF in and then it's going to ask me some general information about that Preprint. So I'm going to go ahead and copy the title and stick that in there. All right and then it asks me to provide some general information about what sort of discipline this Preprint relates to. So it's Social and Behavioral Sciences and different Preprint servers will have different options for this kind of keyword taxonomy. So I'll say Psychology and then I can say let's say it's Quantitative and it's Social. You can see that I can pick multiple taxonomies. So if something for example was mostly psychology but I also wanted it to be kind of indexed for life sciences I could also say there's a life science option. It has a neuroscience bent to it and it's about cognitive neuroscience. I'm going to take that one out because this is not actually related in any way to neurobiology but I'll pick whatever taxonomies I want and then click Save and Continue. So now I have some choices about the license. I'm going to put a CC0 license on there but I could also pick CCBuy which is Creative Commons Attribution which just means that people need to attribute when they use it. I'm going to apply that license to the OSF project that will make sense in a moment and then it says what's the DOI associated with the journal article. This is optional but I know based on Sherpa Romeo that I have to input this information so I'm going to go back to that PubMed entry, highlight the DOI and copy that over. I can also add additional keywords if I want to about things that weren't covered in the taxonomy. So I could say this is a meta-analysis for example about construal level theory, psychological distance and this will just be keywords that allows people to find it more easily when they search and then I'm going to add the abstract of my preprint. Once again I'm just going to copy and paste this that I'm going to save that. If at any point I need to go back and make changes I can go into these different sections you'll see click edit and I can make changes to that either as I'm going through the process or even once the preprint is done. So because it's my OSF account I'm automatically inputted as an author but I want to add the other people who are authors. So I'm going to search them by name. What it's going to do is it's going to look and see if they already have an OSF account. If they do I can just add them in to the author list. If they don't have an OSF account so I don't think she has one. Right so it says no results found for on the third author. I could add them and then I would put in their name and their email address. What that would do is create an OSF account for them so that they could be properly added to the list. I'm not actually going to do that right now and I'm just going to click next. So it's just kind of telling me what's going to happen once I submit which is basically it will create a publicly accessible preprint on Cygarchive. I'm going to click share and then this is what the preprint view looks like. As I mentioned I can go back and edit the preprint so if I want to go back and add Annie and Amit who are the other two co-authors on this paper I can go back and do that by just clicking that edit button and you'll see the preprints here. I have a download count so as people go and download the preprint that'll click up and then I have that tagging information, the disciplines, the license. And the citation for it. This is especially useful if it is a true preprint rather than something that's published in the journal so that people can cite me. I was also mentioning how these preprints are related to OSF projects so when I upload a new preprint if I go to visit this project right here it's created an OSF project behind the preprint. So what this means is that if I wanted to upload say the data that was associated with this preprint I could upload it directly to the project by clicking on that OSF storage, clicking upload and then getting a search through my computer and those would then show up on the preprints page. It also allows me to version the preprint so if I were to upload a file with the exact same name into this project that had some changes made to it it will update the preprint to a new version so you'll notice down here if I go back to that preprint page it says version one. So this is a postprint so the version is not likely to change but if the article had to be corrected for some reason it might. If this was a working paper or preprint you know maybe I get it back from the journal and the editor is what we need to make some changes. I could then just upload a new version rather than having to create a whole separate preprint page for that edited version. So now that the preprint is up there I can actually go over search really quickly so if I go to search this will give me a search through site archive and I can do that so I could search say for any preprints related to stereotypes and you'll see that I can specify that search a little bit more by those subject tags that I was adding when I was creating my preprint. However maybe I think that other disciplines outside of just psychology might be interested in stereotypes so one of the things I can do using OSF preprints is take advantage of the fact that it allows me to search across a wide variety so if I put in stereotypes here what it's going to do is it's going to search across all of those preprint providers both the ones that we've set up as branded preprint servers but also the preprint servers that we just index so for example cog prints or preprints.org or peer j so I can search in one place look across all those providers and then get information about those so let's say I actually decide that I just want to index preprints that are related to stereotypes from peer j and maybe also cog prints I can filter the search and there actually aren't any results from those probably because peer j is mostly for biology so it would be a little bit weird if stereotype information was in there though it could happen so let's say I looked for something a little bit more bio related I know that biologists will often post in bio archive but I also know that they post in peer j so rather than having to search across both of those independently I can search them once here and get information from both of those providers and then I could filter by just one of them so this is only results coming from bio archive or actively filter across both of those and you can see it tells me on the bottom where that preprint is stored all right um so that was mainly what I wanted to go over in terms of showing you all how to use osf preprints for search as well as uploading preprints I showed you how to upload it to sci archive the process is basically the same no matter where you add your preprint to so I click add preprint on osf preprints generally you'll see that this looks right the process is very similar the only thing that's really going to differ is in the discipline section where I was saying you know it was social science that taxonomy will look different depending on the different preprint server because each one of them can choose their own taxonomy all right so we've had quite a few questions that have come in as I've been talking so we'll start answering those yeah Courtney I'll be a couple over to you I know one question that came in was about license and the question was do you have to have a license before publishing the preprint maybe talk a little bit about how you apply a license sure um so if I go back to that preprint that I posted hold on um just search for my name that'll bring it up easy more quickly um I'll just for I'll just search one that already well more importantly uh just um an author who's posting their own preprint they could they choose their license that's up to their that's their discretion on what they can apply as a license to their own work yeah so you can as I showed you can add the license as you go through uploading the preprint um but you don't have to do that that is not a required field um it's kind of always good practice to add a license um just because then it makes it really clear how other people are allowed to reuse your work um one thing you'll sometimes see a trip aromio under these general conditions sometimes it may specify what license you have to put the preprint under but others don't specify any sort of license so if um the journal you're posting a preprint or a postprint for um has information about what license you have to apply to it then you would want to make sure that you definitely apply that license um but it is kind of best practice to apply um some sort of license when you post the preprint great can I add one point on that yes please do fill yeah thanks um one one reason why uh it's good to use a non-restrictive license like cc0 is that there are people crawling around the internet doing things that we really want them to do like meta analysis aggregating uh research and so on and if they're doing any kind of automated collection of the work uh for analysis or something like that um they are sometimes put off by a restrictive license and they'll just skip that so having um having a no license or a cc0 is most encouraging of allowing people to um to sort of harvest and and use that work in ways that are becoming increasingly important great and Philip while you're talking I know you've read some text responses in the q&a panel but just so everyone else who's maybe not looking there can you talk a little bit about um the choice that someone might have for posting to one service versus another like if it's if it's a disciplinary between psychology and sociology why um how will someone might choose to go between sci archive and social archive yeah that's a good question and we sort of we've made the decision to have a lot of different services and let people set their own norms for the communities but we're uh uh that we've lowered the stakes of that decision by having everything aggregated under osf preprints everything also now is going to show up in a google scholar search um so um so it's not a it's not a very big decision unless there's some specific reason for example um social archive is developing a program where people can run their paper awards on social archive there may be a time when there's some programmatic reason to have it on one or another but generally I think you think about it sort of like where you would submit something to a journal um a lot of work is interdisciplinary but when you publish it you sort of have to decide where it goes but I think it's relatively low stakes uh and at the moment uh correct me if I'm wrong you can't um you can't post the same work to more than one of the services um so uh so just so just pick one and and try not to worry about it too much that is correct although it is something that we are is on a roadmap to um to allow that in the future is to allow a single preprint to be discoverable on multiple services and there's obviously some metadata issues to work through on that um but but especially once different groups have different types of moderation service um that's something that we certainly envision happening but it you're you're right currently that is not available uh today but it's something that we're working towards um so let's see here a couple other questions that came in um was there were about google scholar um there's one particular question about how long it takes for somebody to appear on google scholar um you know this is relatively new on our side of things so um my understanding is it takes it's actually relatively quickly it's really up to google how often they crawl um so far it's been happening pretty quickly uh I'd say within less than a day um but we're still monitoring that and and hopefully we'll have some um better data to answer that question on but right now it's a little bit um inconclusive I'll put it that way um there's another question on features around commenting um currently there is no commenting on the preprint interface but as Courtney showed there is a OSF project behind the scenes and there is a standard OSF project commenting space which um if you have a public project you will be notified of any comments made there um again it is on our roadmap um and I'd be happy to show that link again in just a second um but we are reporting this commenting feature over to the preprints itself uh in the near future because we do agree that getting that that feedback in the commentary um directly on the preprint um uh service is certainly important right now so you can you can post the link and have those dialogues um in other venues let's see here for other questions I know several folks pointed out the Sherpa Romeo database again and that is a wonderful resource uh let's see here oh yeah one question asked about citation of preprints and I know that's been a recent um issue of of of interest um for several folks maybe Phil do you have a comment about um citing preprints uh yes well there are different norms emerging about this um in sociology we don't have this issue so much um we pretty much our norms are that you cite whatever you whatever sources of information you have used in other cases for example grant applications and some journals have rules that you can only cite to certain kinds of work um in your in your references um so that's gonna that's gonna vary by discipline I know the trend has been towards a formally acknowledging uh the that preprints are acceptable it's a little bit dicey because if you have a number of citations in your work and some are to work that's that's peer reviewed and some are to work that's not some people really want to see that distinction so that's gonna that's gonna be the question that you have to decide in terms of how you're going to cite it if somebody has um a posted a working paper version of something that's not been peer reviewed um you you may you might want to cite that differently from something that has already gone through peer review or you might not if you're an expert in that subject and you've read the paper and you've decided citable that's up to you so I'm afraid it really depends on on the disciplines but in sociology it certainly is appropriate and uh and acceptable to cite uh preprints yeah I'll echo that from the debate that I've seen um in a couple of different places um that it is going to be somewhat discipline specific and it's a great debate to have um you know that's that's part of the sort of uh experimentation of a lot of new disciplines paying attention to preprints is some of these practices can be uh can be decided upon um and related to that same question that the same person asked about doi so right now you can enter the doi for the final published paper we will be adding um actually settings in our very next update that's going to go out um we'll be knitting dois for preprints um so that'll be very uh maybe available very very soon uh so um yeah please look forward to that and we'll be sending out um some notifications for folks who are using preprints about that so they can assign their dois um there's a question about embargo um maybe Phil maybe you can answer this one um the question was if a journal has an embargo for instance up to 12 months does that begin with the e-pub date um or the formal publication date how does that how does publication date and embargo relate to preprints oh that's a good question again it's going to depend on the license but that I'm the on the author agreement but I know those are hard to hard to read um my understanding from just from the ones I've read is that it goes from the publication date of the journal but um probably not I'm probably not the expert on that um and in some cases if you have a posted a preprint version um you may be able to leave that version up until the embargo um and then after the embargo is over then you can put up the off the the journal uh PDF version or whatever um so in practice it might not matter that much um but I'm I'm afraid I'm just not expert on that okay yeah we might need to yeah get some more more opinions on that one but um related to that um we had a question about cc five versus cc zero um and again this is sort of a deep dive in licensing and I will point people out that um if you go to the c os uh youtube channel we actually had a webinar on licensing um specifically a few months ago um from a representative at the university of Virginia um so that might be of interest to anyone with questions about licensing but just curious bill if you know um is cc buy considered a more restrictive license in cc zero you know it requires um credit of the work to the author um but it's still open to the public is right no I actually was just typing a response to that which I'll send now um but the uh I think the it is not a restrictive license cc buy um and my own opinion is that it doesn't much matter between cc buy and cc zero um because crediting authors is normative it's it's um required by anybody uh who's legitimately working in the professions anyway the idea that somebody would republish an academic paper without identifying the author means they're not a legitimate actor anyway and they probably wouldn't follow the license if you gave it to them so somebody who would publish would republish academic work without attributing it to the author um is basically stealing your work anyway and and um so anyway but some people feel more comfortable um requiring that and practice I I don't think it makes a difference and I'm not sure what the implications are as far as what I was talking about earlier with machine learning and crawlers and so on so my my advice is to go with the non-restrictive one and try to win these and win any conflict that arise through the court of norms and and culture rather than um through licensing that's my own opinion great so there's another question um around and maybe um corny maybe you can show this when you edit this preprint um the question is kind of funding source or some other coordinating center post-preprints on behalf of authors and that is definitely something that you can do because we know that is a common practice within some fields so you can actually submit a preprint and add a series of authors and then remove yourself from the author list maybe corny you can show that real quickly yeah so if i'm in this preprint I go back and click edit and go down to the author list um so right now right it's showing that I can't remove myself that's because there has to be at least one administrator on an osf project and because this preprint is basically a special view of the osf project the same thing applies here so all I have to do is if I change Shannon to administrator and re-save this uh sorry click too soon uh if I go back to the edit pane shouldn't be able oh found a bug uh so I can't actually do it um it's a little bug that I can't do it from here but the way I could do it is if I go back to the osf project itself visit the project click on contributors I have that remove option here because Shannon isn't admitted earlier click remove um or actually I could remove myself completely um I'm going to go back to the preprint um you'll see that I'm no longer showing up another thing I could have done was I could have um gone to the contributors list and just made myself a non bibliographic contributor um so because I'm not contributors not showing up anymore um but there was on the contributors tab um right between the permission settings and the remove the remove button the little checkbox that said bibliographic if I were to uncheck that I would still have my same permissions on the project I just would not show up as a contributor so those are kind of the two options yeah I think the process for removing yourself from the preprint because the project's already been created you do have to go through the project to remove yourself from the project but when you first create the preprint I believe you can remove yourself as a contributor once you've added another administrator um so the thank you for showing that um there was one other question regarding licensing and it's really just the question around a journal having a very specific license type um that maybe wasn't available on the preprint upload um so each community or each branded service is is is selecting a selection of licenses um and some are deciding to be most of a multiple many many license types and some are saying we'd rather everything here be listed under certain licenses and so it's really going to come down to maybe communicating with the organizing group behind the the preprint service so for instance if you were submitting to social archive and you didn't see a license site that you wanted um that it might be worthwhile reaching out to the folks at social archive and then you have a you know an email address and a Twitter handle where you can ask those questions um because there are going to be some requirements that maybe publishers put on that that social archive or site archive or other groups um may have a reason for not offering that particular license type um and this will be something that'll be ongoing and and evolving for sure so um just important to ask those questions of the groups involved the center for open science whose you know building the infrastructure we're facilitating as much uh variation in flexibility as we can um using the the core and underlying core infrastructure that we have um but it's a great question to have as i think as authors take more control over the communication of their work license decisions will become more critical so it's great that we're all educating ourselves a little bit more about license types and what their implications are um there was one question that came in actually through chat so i just just caught sight of it um and we're going to wrap this up in just a couple minutes so i appreciate everyone sticking around for the full thing um maybe philip you can answer this the question is how well are preprints tied into research impact indicators and maybe more clarification on that question is needed but i was curious research what comes philip what comes to mind for you when you hear that question uh well there is um uh uh there's research starting to come out on this but it's it's all very new and it's difficult to say for one we really haven't agreed on what the appropriate way to um uh to analyze the impact of of research to analyze what the impact of research is all together um my own sense is that um the citations to uh preprint or working paper are not uh as important as um the fact that you're getting the work into the hands of the people who are interested in it and so that the payoff comes later um so i know that's that's abstract and it's hard it's hard to quantify but i don't think uh for example if you report the number of downloads for your preprint or um even citations to the preprint unless there are a lot i don't think it's going to make much difference um but i think the difference really comes from um uh the improvements we get to quality um impact uh engagement with by reaching uh by reaching people who we actually want to read the work so not to dismiss the importance of um metrics all together but um i think it's going to be it's going to be some time before we can put numbers on this and i i don't want that to be a reason why people are skeptical about um starting to share yeah that's a good point um so i'll take one more question and and then we'll we'll let everyone go for the for the rest of their day um the question was is really about relationships with with institutional um services institutional repositories um in ways that institutions are working to improve um scholarly communication um and so there's a lot of a lot of stuff going on there we do have um some really great relationships with a number of institutions we actually have a um a service called osf institutions that allows groups to um provide single sign-on for their community it allows them to aggregate public projects um so that project that Courtney created um could have been affiliated with her research institution like university of virginia or nyu or ucla um and we are exploring connections to local um institutional repositories we actually are piloting somewhere to um services like fedora and hydra which are the backbone um to a lot of institutional repositories um so yeah we're very interested in um um exploring ways to collaborate and make stuff more discoverable that's that's a lot of what we're trying to do and i would encourage your institution repositories to become members of the share um so that your your repository can be harvested by the share service because then if there's a preprint in that service it's possible that we could add it to the discovery layer um that is feeding into the preprint search but at the very least that share uh tool set um will will harvest that data and make it discoverable for a lot of other different services that are looking at share and using that data um and there's over approaching 30 million research um events uh in share so it's a really robust tool set and i would encourage any of you to look at that you can find out more information on that at share dot osf dot i o um and with that i will go ahead and conclude um the webinar thank you very much for your time today thank you for having me really enjoyed it yeah contact us yeah definitely and and Courtney thank you for for showing the hands-on time while we were submitting a preprint in search um Courtney and myself are available for any questions you have you can reach out to us um at c os dot i o um Phil will share his information um at social archives is the twitter handle uh for them and we really appreciate the time everyone um had the games today um this is certainly an ongoing and evolving discussion uh with a lot of communities and uh we're happy to play a part in facilitating um as much as we can so great thank you very much