Changing the phrase for preprint versions (ing.grid preprints)

[mattiker]

The current phrase for preprints at ing.grid is This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version {x} of this Preprint. Example: https://preprints.inggrid.org/repository/view/14/ But some of the preprints are already reviewed and are linked to the published version. Can you change the wording to: This article is a preprint (current version: {x})

[ajrbyers]

@mattiker has the DOI of the published preprint been added to the preprint's metadata?

[mattiker]

No, the preprints don't have a DOI. They will only get one after the open peer review when they are transferred to the journal.

[ajrbyers]

Just for clarity I'm talking about the Published DOI field. This field allows you to say "This Preprint has a published version and this is the DOI for it"

If you set this to the article DOI the wording will change.

[mattiker]

Got it, I just changed it for https://preprints.inggrid.org/repository/view/14/ and the wording now is: This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. The published version of this Preprint is available: https://doi.org/10.48694/inggrid.3866. This is version 8 of this Preprint.

Before entering the DOI manually, the wording was A published version of this Preprint is available on ing.grid, so there already is some kind of reference, example: https://preprints.inggrid.org/repository/view/1/

But the first sentence is not quite right because the preprints actually are open peer reviewed. So the phrase This article is a preprint (current version: {DOI}) reflects this a bit better.

[mauromsl]

We want to carefully consider if there are any further implications for repositories if we were to remove this wording broadly. @alainna how would this affect the repositories that you run? The initial implementation of this page was designed to match EarthArxiv's previous platform IIRC.

[alainna]

@mauromsl We consider this disclaimer critical, and having the peer review status, linking to the published version, etc is also useful. However we also agree that it may not reflect the actual peer review status of the article.

Our ideal state would be for the disclaimer to be based on the peer review/evaluation status of the displayed version of the preprint, eg

• This is a [Preprint] and it [has not been peer reviewed]. This is version [1] of this [Preprint].

• This is a [Preprint] and it [has been peer reviewed]. [The published version of this [Preprint] is available: [https://doi.org/10.0001/journal.00001].] This is version [3] of this [Preprint].

Perhaps it might be useful for this to be a Repository Wizard template, which the repository could use {{repository.object}} tags to build for themselves? Ideally it would be able to fill in data from custom repository fields as well. For example, if the repository added a custom field for "peer review", then {{repository.customfieldwhatever}} would read that field and display "has not been peer reviewed", etc.

[mattiker]

@mauromsl We like the idea from @alainna using tags to customize the phrases and would favor this solution if possible:

Perhaps it might be useful for this to be a Repository Wizard template, which the repository could use {{repository.object}} tags to build for themselves? Ideally it would be able to fill in data from custom repository fields as well. For example, if the repository added a custom field for "peer review", then {{repository.customfieldwhatever}} would read that field and display "has not been peer reviewed", etc.