Author Guidelines

SciViD

These guidelines explain how to prepare, submit, update and withdraw a SciViD video preprint. They complement the Terms & Conditions, the Integrity Guide and the guidance on Publishing Computational Models and Simulations. Where these guidelines and the Terms & Conditions differ, the Terms & Conditions apply.

1. What SciViD posts

A SciViD video preprint combines a short manuscript, a video abstract narrated in an author’s own voice or with a disclosed synthetic voice and, where relevant, an interactive lab. Posting is free. Every item is screened against a posting checklist, labeled “Preliminary · Not peer reviewed”, and carries a SciViD identifier and version number.

2. Who can submit

Researchers: submit through Submit a Preprint. All authors must agree to the submission.
Students: high school students (normally grades 10–12; grade 9 with a teacher’s or mentor’s recommendation), undergraduate and graduate students, and early-career researchers may submit to the Emerging Scholars series, individually or in teams (normally up to four authors; larger teams with the editors’ approval); graduate students may instead choose the Research series, and authors under 18 must use Emerging Scholars. Authors under 18 need the written consent of a parent or guardian, and Emerging Scholars submissions need the sign-off of a teacher, mentor or research supervisor. With that consent, authors under 18 may be listed by full name or by first name and last initial.
Two series. SciViD posts video preprints in two separate series. The Research series (identifier SciViD-VP.YYYY.NNNN) is for work whose corresponding author holds a doctorate or a research position. The Emerging Scholars series (identifier SciViD-ES.YYYY.NNNN) is for work by high school, undergraduate and graduate students. Graduate students may choose either series; authors under 18 must use Emerging Scholars. Mixed teams with no author under 18 are posted in the Research series when a researcher is the corresponding author and accepts responsibility for the work. Emerging Scholars items are shown only in the Emerging Scholars collection and carry the label “Emerging Scholars · Student work · Preliminary · Not peer reviewed”; they are not listed in the subject collections of the Research series.

Authorship. Authorship reflects contribution, not position or seniority. Every author must have:

made a substantial contribution to the idea, design, execution or analysis of the work;
helped write or critically revise the manuscript and video abstract; and
approved the submitted version and accepted responsibility for its content.

Adding a teacher, professor or other person who does not meet these criteria (honorary or “gift” authorship) is not allowed. Students may be the only authors of their work. Teachers, mentors and supervisors who helped without meeting the criteria are named in the acknowledgements and in the contribution statement, which must describe all help received, including help provided through paid programs.

Responsible adult for authors under 18. The teacher, mentor or supervisor who signs off an Emerging Scholars submission is recorded as its responsible adult. This person confirms that the work was carried out as described and, for practical work, safely, and is the editors’ contact for the submission. Signing off does not make that person an author, and they are not listed as one unless they meet the criteria above.

3. Types of submission

Experimental: original experiments performed by the authors. Results are shown as Recorded Data.
Computational and theoretical: numerical, analytical or machine-learning studies, which must also meet the requirements in Publishing Computational Models and Simulations.
Reviews and perspectives: syntheses of existing literature, citing all original sources.
Protocols and methods: a real, step-by-step video of an experimental procedure recorded by the authors, with materials, settings, safety precautions and expected results. Use the Protocol or methods template above.

Emerging Scholars submissions use five formats of their own, listed on the Emerging Scholars page.

Not posted as video preprints. Popular-science explainers, lectures, course videos and channel content that do not present the authors' own research, review, method or model are not video preprints. They may accompany a posted preprint as a separate film (section 6), but they are not screened, numbered or posted as preprints.

4. Preparing the manuscript

File format: PDF, DOC or DOCX.
Structure: abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and references.
Length: Emerging Scholars manuscripts are typically 2–6 pages, with a structured abstract of up to 150 words. If your project needs a longer manuscript, ask the editors before submitting.
References checked against their DOIs.
A contribution statement, including any help from mentors, teachers or paid programs.
An AI Use Statement listing tools, scope and intent, as set out in the Integrity Guide.
A Claim & AI-use log: a short table listing each key claim, its supporting source or data, who checked it and how, and any AI tool used in that step. Required for Emerging Scholars submissions; optional for other authors. The log is seen only by the editors and is not posted.
A code and data availability statement. Deposit in an archived repository with a DOI is encouraged.
Permission for every figure, image, video, sound or dataset you did not create (an open license such as CC BY, or the owner’s permission).
For research with human participants: approval from a school, institution or ethics committee.

5. Preparing the video abstract

The video abstract is the short video that, together with the manuscript, makes a submission a video preprint. Authors record it themselves; no professional production is needed, and production quality alone is never a reason to decline a submission.

Accepted formats (any combination):

slides or figures with recorded narration (screen recording);
an author on camera, with slides or figures;
footage of the experiment, setup or device;
animations and visualizations, including AI-generated ones, labeled as described below.

Minimum requirements:

Length: 1 to 3 minutes. The video can be added after the manuscript has been submitted.
Narration in an author’s own voice or with a synthetic voice. Any synthetic or professional voice must be disclosed on screen and in the AI-use statement.
Every segment carries an on-screen label: Recorded Data, Simulation Output, Model-Predicted Output, Conceptual Animation, Illustrative Metaphor or Hypothetical Scenario.
Scale bars, timestamps and playback speed are shown where relevant.
No AI denoising, upscaling, frame interpolation or generative enhancement of Recorded Data, Simulation Output or Model-Predicted Output.
Everyone shown or heard has agreed; for people under 18, a parent or guardian has consented.
Safety: show the personal protective equipment the procedure requires, and state hazards and disposal steps on screen and in the manuscript.
Authors under 18 may not perform or film procedures involving hazardous chemicals, biological agents, high voltage, lasers above Class 2 or open flames unless a qualified, named supervisor is present. SciViD may decline or remove any video that shows unsafe practice.

Structure: the research question, the method, the key result shown with real data, model output or a graph (with units and axis labels), one main limitation, and the conclusion.
Consistency: the video must match the manuscript and must not show results, data or claims that the manuscript does not contain.
Legibility: at least 1920 × 1080 pixels, text large enough to read on a phone, and English subtitles.
Sound: clear speech without disturbing background noise or music.
Rights: a license or permission for every image, clip and piece of music you did not create.
File: MP4 (H.264).

Not accepted: AI-generated images or video presented as data or results, and any AI processing of recorded data (see the Integrity Guide).

How the video abstract is assessed. Editors check the video against the minimum requirements above, not its production quality.

Basic but complete: a simple video, such as slides or figures with narration, that meets the minimum requirements is accepted.
Below the minimum requirements: a video with, for example, unclear sound, missing labels, a length outside 1 to 3 minutes or content that does not match the manuscript receives “changes required”, even when the manuscript is ready. The item is posted once the video meets the requirements.
Misleading: visuals that misrepresent data, or present illustrations as results, are handled under the Integrity Guide and may lead to a decline.

Help with the video abstract. SciViD provides free starter kits in SciViD Studio and, during screening, specific comments on the video. Authors, including students submitting through Emerging Scholars, make their own video abstract. Provide captions or a transcript for it and short text descriptions of key figures, so that the work is accessible.

6. Companion interactive labs and scientific films

Authors may link an interactive lab to their preprint; SciViD hosts it free of charge. Labs must state the model’s assumptions and limitations and are labeled “Model simulation, not experimental data”. Each lab also shows a status label (“Quantitative model: checked against [benchmark]” or “Illustrative model: not validated”) and a model card on its first screen, and a lab that computes in the browser must pass a regression test against the reference code, as set out in Publishing Computational Models and Simulations.

Labs built by others. If a lab is built by SciViD, NanoTRIZ or anyone else, the authors check the model, must be able to explain what it shows and where it fails, take responsibility for it, and describe who built it in the contribution statement.
Hosting terms. SciViD hosts, free of charge, labs delivered as a self-contained static web page with no server, external database or paid API. A hosted lab is fixed to the preprint version it accompanies; SciViD does not undertake to maintain or update its code.

A Video Preprint comprises the scientific text, its short video abstract and any supplementary material included in its versioned record. A scientific film is a separate, longer video (typically 6 to 10 minutes, with animation, simulations and narration) that the authors may make to accompany the preprint. Films are optional and are made by the authors themselves, for example with SciViD Studio templates. Whether or not a film is made has no effect on posting decisions. A Companion Interactive Lab lets readers explore related data or a model. Adding a separately linked film does not by itself create a new preprint version; changes to scientific content or files in the versioned record do. Films explaining published journal articles are identified as research films or video abstracts of published articles and link to the original publication.

Films added after posting. A film added after a preprint is posted appears on the item page as a separate, dated entry with a short description, for example “Extended video (added 12 March 2027)”. The video abstract posted with the preprint stays unchanged. If the film presents new data, new analyses or changed conclusions, the authors submit a new version of the preprint (v2, v3 and so on) with a revision note, and the new version is screened before posting. A film may have its own DOI from a repository such as Zenodo, or be added as a new version of an existing deposit; the DOI is linked from the item page.

Rights in films. A film is a separate work with its own license. The CC BY 4.0 license of the preprint and video abstract does not extend to it.

Authors’ own use. Authors own the films they make. They may show and share them free of charge in teaching, at conferences, in applications, on their own websites and on video platforms such as YouTube, provided that all third-party material is licensed for that use.
Curated collections. SciViD includes a film in its curated collections only with the authors’ written permission, which states the film’s license and permitted uses. No other agreement with SciViD is needed to make or share a film.
Authors under 18. This permission is given by a parent or guardian.
Third-party material. Music, footage, figures from published articles and output of AI tools are used only where their licenses or terms permit this form of distribution.
Independence. Whether or not the authors make a film has no effect on posting decisions.

7. Editorial screening and posting decisions

All submissions undergo editorial screening before posting. Editors or moderators assess scope, completeness, scholarly presentation, attribution, permissions, consent and transparent labeling of research content. 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.

Editors may request clarifications, corrections or supporting materials, including raw footage, project files, data or code. Outcomes are approval for posting, changes required before posting, or decline for posting with reasons. Editors aim to send this first decision within 2 weeks of a complete submission. These are posting decisions, not peer-review decisions such as minor or major revision. Changes may be requested in up to two rounds; a submission that still does not meet the posting requirements is then declined. Minor corrections, such as typographical errors, may be made by the editors with the authors’ consent. A declined work may be submitted once more as a new submission, with a list of the changes made; a second decline is final unless the work contains substantial new results. Authors may appeal a decision, as set out in Appeals and complaints. The grounds for declining are listed in the Editorial standards. Posting decisions are independent of payment and mentorship arrangements. Every posted preprint is labeled “Preliminary · Not peer reviewed”.

An editor who authored, supervised or mentored the work must disclose that relationship and takes no part in its posting decision. The decision is made by an unconflicted editor or moderator; for work linked to NanoTRIZ, one with no NanoTRIZ role. If independent screening cannot be arranged, posting is deferred. Relevant relationships are disclosed on the posted record.

8. Identifiers and versions

Each preprint has two identifiers. Research series items use the prefix SciViD-VP and Emerging Scholars items use SciViD-ES, for example SciViD-ES.2027.0001; otherwise the scheme is the same:

Work identifier, e.g. SciViD-VP.2026.0001: refers to the preprint as a whole and always leads to the latest version.
Version identifier, e.g. SciViD-VP.2026.0001v1, SciViD-VP.2026.0001v2: refers to one fixed version.

The first public posting is v1. Revisions exchanged with editors before that first posting do not create public versions. Subsequent approved updates are posted as v2, v3 and so on, with a posting date and revision note. The year and serial number never change: a version posted in 2027 remains SciViD-VP.2026.0001v2.

9. Updating a preprint

After public posting, substantive changes to the preprint text, including its methods, analysis, figures, interpretation or conclusions, require a new version. A new version is also required if you change:

the video (footage, editing, narration, on-screen text or figures);
subtitles or the transcript, beyond typographical corrections;
data, code or supplementary files;
results or conclusions;
the author list or author order.

Typographical corrections to the title, abstract, keywords, affiliations or funding statement are made without a new version and are recorded in the change log.

Submit a Revised Version: updates are currently handled by email through the editorial office. Email editor@scivid.net with the work identifier, the complete revised files and a revision note of up to 100 words stating what changed and why. All authors must approve the update; changes to authorship or author order require confirmation from all affected authors. Each new version undergoes editorial screening before posting.

Version History: each posted version records its date and a brief description of changes. Earlier versions and their associated text, video and supplementary files remain accessible. Files belonging to a fixed version are preserved rather than overwritten, so citations to that version, including video timestamps, remain meaningful.

10. Withdrawal

Authors may ask us to withdraw an item. It is then replaced by a withdrawal notice that keeps its identifier and title. An open license cannot be revoked, so copies already made by others under CC BY may remain. SciViD may remove an item entirely only where the law requires it or where it puts someone’s safety or privacy at risk. For authors under 18, see also the rule on removal from public view in section 5 of the Integrity Guide.

11. DOIs

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. SciViD does not arrange a DOI for an item with an author under 18; once all authors are 18 or older, they may deposit it themselves or ask the editors. 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 license. External deposits and their versions are governed by the repository’s rules. A DOI does not certify scientific validity, peer review or journal acceptance.

By submission type: protocols and computational studies benefit most from a DOI, because methods sections cite them. For computational work, deposit the code and data with their own DOI and link it to the preprint. Emerging Scholars and other preliminary work can be posted with a SciViD identifier only, and a DOI can be requested for a later version after editorial screening.

A DOI is permanent. It cannot be deleted, and a withdrawn item keeps its record with a withdrawal notice, so request a DOI only for a version you are prepared to stand behind.

For items with a DOI, include a one-page PDF with the title, authors, affiliations, abstract, DOI and references, so that the work can be indexed and cited.

12. Journal publication

Posting on SciViD does not prevent submission to a journal, but check the preprint policy of your target journal first. When the work is published, send us its DOI and we will link the preprint to the published version. This does not create a new preprint version.

13. How to cite

Cite the version you viewed and, where relevant, the time range:

Author A, Author B (2026). Title. SciViD Video Preprint SciViD-VP.2026.0001v2, 03:12–04:05. Preprint, not peer reviewed. [Link to the item]

A citation without a version number refers to the work in general, not to specific content. Always describe a SciViD item as a preprint, not as a peer-reviewed publication.

Visibility and indexing. Posted items are publicly accessible and may be indexed by search engines and academic discovery services; SciViD does not guarantee inclusion in any particular index. Indexing also makes authors’ names easier to find. For authors under 18, an item can be removed from public view on SciViD as set out in section 5 of the Integrity Guide, but copies held by search engines, web archives or others may persist for some time or permanently. Parents and guardians should take this into account when giving consent.

14. Copyright, license and fees

Authors keep the copyright in their work. Unless stated otherwise, items are posted under CC BY 4.0. Posting, posting new versions and hosting interactive labs are free.

Optional training and mentorship are separate paid services. Payment does not guarantee posting, peer review or a favorable editorial decision. All submissions undergo the same editorial screening.

Contact

Questions about these guidelines: editor@scivid.net

Label	Meaning	Minimum evidence
Benchmarked	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 Claim & 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

Author Guidelines

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

Author Guidelines

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

About you

The student and the work

The video abstract

Your consent