An issue that comes up from time to time with submissions made to the Engineering Archive is what happens if one of the co-authors on a paper finds out later that it was submitted without their knowledge and they don’t approve. There are two ways to approach this issue: 1) professional norms and 2) copyright law.

While it may not be as fun as the underlying engineering work that went into producing a research paper, it’s important for authors to be well-informed about their rights and responsibilities. Having some awareness of copyright law and adhering to best practices, authors can protect their intellectual property and avoid potential disputes with co-authors.

First, it’s generally considered good practice for authors to seek permission from their co-authors before submitting a paper for publication at any venue. Journal publishers typically expect that all authors are aware of and agree to a possible publication of their work (this also influences copyright, discussed further below). As part of the submission process at Engineering Archive, submitting authors are specifically asked if they have obtained permission to post the work from their co-authors. However, this permission is not independently verified by server moderators.

With regards to copyright law*, there are a few considerations. When it comes to a multi-authored work such as a typical research manuscript, each author holds copyright over their specific contributions. This means that if a portion of the work was originally created by a single author, that author has the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, display, and perform only that specific part of the work. However, it’s not always possible to discern each individual’s contributions to a research paper. If this is the case, then the copyright for the entire work is typically owned by the authors collectively, not individually. Therefore, each author would have the right to reproduce, distribute, display, and perform the entire work, but not just their specific contributions.

As a best practice, authors should consider implementing an authorship agreement in advance of any collaboration. This agreement could address issues such as acceptable future venues for publication (don’t forget to include a preprint server!), authorship order, etc. All authors should agree in advance on these things which may have future implications on the acceptable terms of publication, including the choice of publisher, the license granted to the publisher, and the terms of any agreements regarding royalties or other financial considerations.

Issues related to authorship disputes may be covered in our server’s terms. Most of the time, co-authors should discuss these matters and reach an agreement prior to submitting a work to Engineering Archive. Once the work has been posted to the server, our terms and conditions apply and withdrawal of the work will only be made under conditions of legal obligation.

This is a blog post and not legal advice. It’s always advisable to consult a legal expert or refer to copyright law resources when dealing with copyright matters.

Apologies for being a little late in getting this year-end summary post out there. The year 2023 has been one of stability at Engineering Archive. The server has now settled in to the new software, Open Preprint Systems, and our authors seem to be getting more familiar with the submission workflow. As a result, we have seen some moderate growth in the number of submissions in 2023 as compared with 2022. We currently average around 40 new preprints per month, which garners around 500 preprints annually. This year, we have seen some uptick in the submission of citation spam, which effectively consists of minimal effort papers with an excessive number of self-citations. These are screened manually, although of course some do occasionally slip through the cracks.

This year we were also able to remove one of the pain points in the preprint authoring workflow at OPS, the versioning of posted preprints. With the assistance of a plugin developed by Lepidus Tecnologia, authors can now both create and submit for review new versions of their preprints. This is a drastic improvement over the previous manual method of needing to notify engrXiv moderators when new preprint versions were ready to post. As the plugin is open source, this new workflow is available to all who use Open Preprint systems thanks to the financial support of Open Engineering Inc.

The continued operation of the server and our ability to make improvements such as just described is only possible due to the financial support of the Engineering Archive Membership Circle. The Membership Circle creates the opportunity for institutions, libraries, and other organizations to support the sustainability of the server through a $500 annual contribution. Many of our supporting libraries are in their 6th year of keeping the server running!

We hope you’ll keep in touch via social media. Find us on the fediverse at our Mastodon account @engrxiv@scicomm.xyz. While we still annouce new preprints on Twitter via automated means, that account is no longer actively monitored.

The workflow for creating a new version of a preprint on Engineering Archive has been a challenge for the last year and a half as there was no mechanism for authors to submit new preprint versions and instead they had to manually notify the server administrator when the new versions were ready to be posted. As of a few weeks ago, this is no longer the case with the development of a new version submission workflow.

Thanks to the work of Lepidus Technologia, funded by Open Engineering, authors can now submit new preprint versions when they are ready for them to be posted. As part of the workflow, authors are also asked to provide a justification for the new version, which will be shared with the server administrator and also displayed publicly on the preprint’s page.

Instructions for following this new workflow can be found on the Submission Editing page.