Prepare Research for Publication

SPACETRC / MAKE SCIENCE TOGETHER

Make a study
traceable.

Bring sources, methods, data and versions into one package. Recheck an actual research object and prepare a portable archive submission.

Question → method → review → sharing

WORKING FILE

Prepare, examine and revise.

Local draft

Working title

Abstract and research questionData, method, code and reproduction stepsLimits, uncertainty and correction notesAuthors · one line Full name | optional ORCID

Names and ORCIDs are self-supplied. An ORCID checksum is not identity or contribution verification. Include only author information you have permission to share.

Work versionReuse licence for this package

Other licence and reuse limitsSources · one HTTPS address per line, up to 8

Code repository HTTPS URL · if availableData archive HTTPS URL · if available

Data/code availability and reuse notesExisting DOI · if any, must identify the same object

The package licence does not change third-party source licences. Do not use a journal article DOI as the identifier of a different supporting dataset.

Open JSON draft

EXISTING REAL REVIEW WORKFLOW

Attach the object to your own research report.

Choose an unpublished report created in your own account through My First Research / My Research and matching the object’s dataset. Submission places the report in the real review queue; public publication requires a separate editor action.

My own report with the same datasetI explicitly choose to attach the selected object’s data, method, results and self-supplied author details to my selected report for public download after real editorial approval and to resubmit the report for review.

Existing open research archive and review states ↗

01 / RECOMPUTABLE ATTACHMENT

Attach an existing research object.

Choose a 5.0.0/5.0.1 research object exported from Reproduce a Discovery. The page never executes code from the file. Local reading checks structure and integrity; the server button separately verifies retained source data and recalculates the result.

Research-object JSON · up to 2 MB

I choose to send the complete selected object to our WordPress site to recheck its source and calculation.

02 / PORTABLE PUBLICATION PREPARATION

Carry data, method and metadata together.

The ZIP includes the working file, editable Zenodo metadata, licence notes, a SHA-256 file list and any research object you selected. It neither uploads files to an archive nor reserves a DOI.

I have checked sharing rights for the selected authors, sources, methods and files and choose to download the preparation package.

Official Zenodo upload page ↗Final archive review and publication steps ↗

03 / VERIFY AN EXISTING PUBLIC RECORD

Open the original record behind a DOI.

The query retrieves only public Zenodo record metadata. A record’s existence proves neither your authorship nor academic peer review.

Zenodo record number or 10.5281/zenodo.… DOII choose to query this public record identifier through the official Zenodo service. My private draft and files are not sent.

ACCOUNT-BOUND PRIVATE WORK

A real record, a current version, explicit access choices.

Account saving makes only the current form a private record. Team and separate-reviewer access are optional; saving creates no public programme, research result, event or archive publication.

Choose a private record

Team · optional, actual membership checkedExisting linked research project · optionalDistinct real reviewer’s WordPress user ID · 0 if none

I permit the selected existing team to view this private record.I permit the distinct site account I entered to view this content and provide version-bound feedback.What changed in this version?I choose to save this form privately in my WordPress account with the access scope I explicitly selected.

What makes a study stronger?

Question and criteria come first.

Record target population, data separation, metrics and uncertainty rules before seeing the result. A preparation checklist does not measure scientific validity.

Feedback binds to content.

A new version changes the context of earlier comments. Old feedback remains in history and is not shown as current approval.

Reproduction is a useful outcome.

Make another person’s reproduction from the same sources and steps, detected errors and corrections visible. Visit counts are not scientific findings.

Sources are methodological examples, not a declaration of institutional partnership or programme acceptance. ESA education eligibility depends on the relevant country/institution rules.