A perspective on the Center for Open Science (COS) preprint servers

Preprints, which are non-peer-reviewed documents that are typically precursors of peer-reviewed papers, or as open access archival forms of published papers (post-prints), are increasingly becoming part of the publishing open access culture. Preprints have been lauded as a rapid form of publication, but for them to be useful and reliable sources of information, they and information pertaining to them (e.g., bibliometric indicators) need to be effectively managed by the servers where they are hosted. In recent years, a number of new preprint servers have emerged. One type of preprint server is owned by publishers, while another is ownership or financial support by philanthropic organizations This paper focuses on one case of the latter type. In 2016, the Virginia, US-based, philanthropically-funded Center for Open Science (COS) launched three preprint services (engrXiv, PsyArXiv, SocArXiv) and started Open Science Framework (OSF) Preprints in 2017. The latter was used as a “template” service to attract thematically-linked communities of academics that also wished to have their own preprint servers. In June 2024, COS listed 29 preprint servers, although 14 of them have ceased publication or hosting of preprints by COS / OSF. One reason may be due to the commercialization of the COS / OSF “template” service, which charges preprint managers an annual fee based on the volume of preprints published annually. In the light of the 14 preprint servers that are no longer hosted at or by COS / OSF, this paper briefly discusses the financial sustainability and information stability of preprint servers, which mostly allow authors to publish preprints for free. Authors’ preprints are usually screened by fairly superficial screening and moderation processes, and it is not unusual to find opaquely or “silently” deleted preprints from preprint servers, including those of COS/OSF. Given that this organization is a well-funded leader of the open science movement, greater transparency is required regarding its own funding, operations, and management, as well as a more frank and an open debate regarding the ethical limitations associated with preprints.