Preprint hosting requirements and priorities discussion

The software platform should be open, standardized, and supported by existing efforts (e.g., existing, widely used repository platforms).

The organization should be committed to Earth science, with funded staff (e.g., a university department/research unit) in this area.

For me this point is less important. It doesn't need to not be related to Earthscience if they have a strong support to preprints. However, would be nice.

That's true. However, the conversations I've had with universities suggest that their local earth scientists can make an internal argument about why that university might want to host EarthArXiv, and maintain it for the long term. Having inside support helps the library/repository folks. But... there is also an issue where the local folks may want to have more of a say in governance.

The organization should already have a commitment to maintaining a repository for science outcomes, with a staff that is committed to this and funded for this.

Can you copy over the original list for new members of the council to consider? I don't think I've seen it as I think it was discussed before I joined over a year ago.

List... hmmm. not sure we had a list. Here are some of the considerations we did focus on: we needed to have (above the basic repository platform with stable support): standard-compliant meta-data and DOIs; an input curation service we could manage; indexed through Google Scholar; a method to revise submissions as needed...

OK, some additional things to think about...
*ability to inform what the front page/submission pages look like (so we can e.g. ensure the moderation code goes upfront to try and avoid the huge number of rejections for non-compliance we have)
*support to maintain DOIs and move the database in the event of the platform ending
*tech support that both authors and moderators can access
*assurances on future commercialisation (e.g. a non-profit platform won't suddenly turn profit)
*assurances on where future fundraising responsibilities will lie

great points!

Well @Rebecca Williams had great points. About the assurance on fundraising, probably we should add that if we are to fundraise for some concepts those are the only ones and that the costs are clear always.