Submit a Preprint

Submit your preprint text and a short video abstract for free SciViD posting, or ask about a separate SciViD Studio scientific film. Every posted item is screened by the editors and labeled “Preliminary · Not peer reviewed”. Students under 18 should submit through the Emerging Scholars page.

SciViD Studio video production is a separate, optional paid service. Ordering it does not influence screening or posting, and posting never requires payment. For authors under 18, Studio services are arranged and paid for by a parent or guardian.

Submission types:

Original research: a complete study with the authors’ own data, methods and conclusions.
Short communication: a brief report of one finding, observation, method or technical result.
Preliminary results: early computational, simulation or experimental results shared before a full study, with assumptions, limitations and next steps stated.
Computational or modelling study: a model or simulation with its equations, parameters and their sources, validated against known results or benchmarks.
Research proposal or hypothesis: the question, rationale, planned methods and expected outcomes; no results claimed.
Research protocol or methods: a step-by-step experimental or computational procedure with materials or software, parameters, safety notes where relevant, and validation or troubleshooting.
Review: a critical synthesis that compares and evaluates published work, with DOI-verified references and at least one figure or table produced by the authors.

Simulations shown in videos or interactive labs are labeled “Model simulation, not experimental data”. AI-generated images or footage are disclosed and are never presented as experimental results.

Before you submit:

Preprint text as PDF, DOC or DOCX, with references checked by DOI where available.
A 1 to 3 minute video abstract narrated by an author. You may submit the manuscript first, but the video preprint is posted only once the video abstract is received.
Statements: author contributions (CRediT), AI use, funding and conflicts of interest. ORCID iDs are recommended for all authors.
Confirmation that all co-authors agree to posting under a CC BY 4.0 licence.
Figures: your own, or created anew from data or equations with sources cited. Figures from CC BY-licensed work may be reused or adapted with attribution. Any other third-party figure requires written permission, obtained and paid for by the authors.
For work involving human participants, patient data or animals: the ethics approval and its reference number.
For computational or simulation work: the code, input parameters and data, or a link to them (for example GitHub, Zenodo or OSF).
If the work already has a DOI (for example on Zenodo), include it so the preprint links to it.

Please check first:

Patents: posting publicly discloses your work and may affect patentability. File any patent application before submitting.
Journals: if you plan to submit to a journal, check its preprint policy, since some journals accept preprints only from recognised servers.

Read more: Guide for authors · Editorial standards

Editorial screening and posting decisions

Editors assess the submission against SciViD’s posting requirements. Screening is not peer review and does not certify scientific accuracy, novelty or validity. Authors remain responsible for their methods, data, calculations, references and conclusions. Outcomes are approval for posting, changes required before posting, or decline with reasons. Payment, mentorship and production services do not influence posting decisions.

Submit a Revised Version

For an already posted preprint, email editor@scivid.net with its SciViD work identifier, complete revised files and a revision note of up to 100 words. Revisions before first public posting remain drafts; the first posted version is v1. Substantive updates after posting undergo screening and become v2, v3 and later versions. See Author Guidelines for Version History and citation requirements.

A DOI is optional and is not required for free SciViD posting. Authors may deposit their work in a suitable repository, such as Zenodo, and provide the DOI for linking. For selected items, SciViD may assist with a repository deposit by prior agreement and with all authors’ consent, including parent or guardian consent for authors under 18. This is not automatic or guaranteed. Provide any existing DOI so records can be linked accurately and unnecessary duplicate deposits avoided. Authors approve the deposited files, authorship, metadata and licence. External deposits and their versions are governed by the repository’s rules. A DOI does not certify scientific validity, peer review or journal acceptance.

Open the submission form

Label	Meaning	Minimum evidence
Validated	The method reproduces an independent reference, and the result is converged	Benchmark comparison, convergence or repeatability test, documented source data
Simplified estimate	An order-of-magnitude or reduced-model result with stated assumptions	Assumptions listed, validity range stated, no claim beyond that range
Conceptual	An illustration of an idea, mechanism or scenario	Clearly marked as illustrative; not used as evidence

Mistake	How to detect it	How to handle it
Model used outside its regime (e.g., continuum flow where the gas is rarefied, inertia included at very low Reynolds number, Brownian motion neglected for sub-micrometer particles)	Compute the relevant dimensionless numbers (Reynolds, Knudsen, Péclet, Biot) for your parameters	State the regime explicitly; choose a model valid in it; cite the source that defines the validity range
Unit and dimension errors (mixing µm and m, °C and K, per-minute and per-second rates)	Check that every equation is dimensionally consistent; run one case by hand	Work in SI units internally; convert only for display; label every axis and value with units
Wrong or unstated boundary and initial conditions	Ask: what happens at each wall, inlet, outlet and at t = 0?	Write them out in the methods; justify each against the physical system
No comparison with a known solution	Ask: has this code ever reproduced a result I did not produce myself?	Reproduce an analytical limit or a published benchmark first; show the comparison
No convergence test	Results change when the mesh, time step or sample size is refined	Refine at least twice; report the change in the key quantity; use the converged setting
AI-generated code accepted without checking	The author cannot explain each line or each parameter	Read and comment the code; test it on a case with a known answer; record what the AI tool produced in the AI-use log
Parameter values without a source	A value appears in a table or narration with no reference	Give a reference, a measurement or an explicit assumption for every parameter
Too few samples for stochastic results	Brownian or Monte Carlo results vary noticeably between runs	Run multiple independent realizations; report the mean and spread

Mistake	Example	Correct handling
Overclaiming	“This device could revolutionize drug delivery” from a single simulation	State what was shown, under which assumptions, and what remains untested
Correlation presented as mechanism	Two quantities change together, so one is said to cause the other	Say “is associated with”; propose the mechanism as a hypothesis and state how to test it
Estimate presented as validated	An order-of-magnitude force estimate narrated as a measured result	Use the correct status label in the text, on screen and in the narration
Missing uncertainty	A single number with no error bar or range	Report the spread across runs, parameter sensitivity, or the range of validity
Selected parameters	Only the parameter set that “works” is shown	Show the parameter sweep, including cases where the effect disappears
Novelty not checked	“For the first time” without a literature search	Search the literature; cite prior work; describe precisely what is new
Extrapolation beyond the model	A result at the micrometer scale is narrated as applying to the human body	Restrict claims to the scale and conditions modeled

Mistake	Why it matters	Correct handling
Conceptual animation mistaken for evidence	A 3D render or generative-video shot looks like a result	Mark such shots on screen as “Conceptual illustration”; keep data-derived visuals visually distinct
Generative video showing physically impossible behavior	AI video tools do not obey physics; motion, scale and timing may be wrong	Use generative footage only for non-evidentiary context; never to show a result
Plots without units, scale bars or error bars	The viewer cannot judge magnitude or reliability	Label axes with quantity and SI unit; add scale bars to images; show uncertainty
Misleading color maps	Rainbow-type maps create false boundaries and are hard to read for colorblind viewers	Use perceptually uniform maps (e.g., viridis, cividis); show the color bar with units
Truncated or inconsistent axes	Small differences look large; panels cannot be compared	Start axes at zero where magnitudes are compared; use the same scale across panels
Narration diverging from the data	The voiceover states a value or trend the figure does not show	Script the narration from the results file; check every number spoken against the source
Time and length scales not shown	Slowed or accelerated motion, or magnified objects, mislead viewers	Display time stamps, playback speed and scale bars
Too much on screen at once	Viewers cannot follow equations, plots and narration simultaneously	One idea per scene; give equations time to be read

Topic	Resource	What it gives you
Reproducible computation	Sandve et al. (2013), Ten Simple Rules for Reproducible Computational Research, PLOS Comput. Biol. 9, e1003285	Practical rules: track how each result was produced, record versions and random seeds, store the raw data behind plots
Figures	Rougier, Droettboom and Bourne (2014), Ten Simple Rules for Better Figures, PLOS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003833	Designing figures for a given audience, message and medium
Color maps	Crameri, Shephard and Heron (2020), The misuse of colour in science communication, Nat. Commun. 11, 5444	Why rainbow and red–green maps distort data; how to choose accessible, perceptually uniform maps
Units	BIPM, The International System of Units (SI Brochure, 9th edition)	Authoritative definitions and rules for writing SI units and quantities
AI and authorship	COPE position statement: Authorship and AI tools	Why AI tools cannot be authors and what authors must disclose
Coding skills	Software Carpentry lessons	Free introductory lessons on the Unix shell, Git, and Python or R
Archiving data and code	Zenodo	A free general-purpose repository operated by CERN that assigns a DOI to each deposit

SciViD

Submit a Preprint

Common Mistakes in Video Preprints

1. Purpose and scope

Result status labels

2. Common mistakes in modeling and computation

3. Common mistakes in interpretation and claims

4. Common mistakes in visualization and video

5. Less obvious mistakes

6. Integrity, authorship and AI disclosure

7. Pre-submission checklist

Model and computation

Results and claims

Video

Integrity and reproducibility

8. Where to find help