A development record is useful now. Confirmatory registration needs more work.
OSF’s 48-hour process concerns administrator approval, not a scientific review. A sole contributor can document a development plan, including unresolved questions. Our actual confirmatory protocol still needs apparatus details, effective sample size, settling, secondary linearity tolerances and control qualification. Registering it “as it stands” does not fill those gaps.
The downloadable worksheet separates a development record from a final preregistration. Neither has been submitted. Keep development data separate from confirmatory data, and preserve every protocol amendment.
Each external process answers a different question.
| Process | Evidence it can provide | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| Zenodo DOI | Identifies and preserves a deposited version | Correct science or qualified hardware |
| CODECHECK | Independent execution of a manuscript’s computation | Correct physical assumptions, new measurements or a promised date |
| Registered Report | Peer review of proposed methods; conditional in-principle acceptance | Passed apparatus controls or unconditional publication |
| Instrument or hardware paper | Reviewed methods and documentation | An independent rebuild unless one was actually performed |
| Power calibration service | A calibration for the specified device and conditions | The entire force traceability chain or a metrology lead |
Submission preparation, not promised acceptance.
CODECHECK is volunteer driven and asks for a research manuscript or suitable draft/preprint and its computational workflow. A request is not a certificate. Nature Communications conditions final Registered Report acceptance on approved methods, quality checks and defensible interpretation. Journal fit and publication costs need checking before submission; no journal has accepted this study.
Journal of Open Hardware’s official policy lists no publication fees. HardwareX’s publisher search listing currently shows $980 excluding taxes, rather than the supplied plan’s historical $500; direct publisher access was blocked, so verify the applicable fee before committing.
Open hardware must be usable and licensed.
We have a planning kit, not a complete instrument design. Editable CAD, tolerances, BOM, firmware, assembly/operation instructions and real validation data remain missing. Rights and hardware/software/data licenses need an explicit owner decision before an open-hardware submission. Downloadable files alone do not establish an open-source license.
arXiv endorsement is a submission mechanism, not a substitute for the Alpha 1 coupling and constraint analysis. Do not assume every first-time submission requires the same manual endorsement route.
Registration and deposit worksheets↗Official sources and access limits
- OSF registration guide — Official administrative and preregistration guidance
- Zenodo software deposits — Official integration and manual-upload guidance
- CODECHECK author route — Official volunteer workflow and capacity limits
- CODECHECK scope — Official scope; independent execution is not a scientific validation
- Nature Communications Registered Reports — Official two-stage review and conditional acceptance rules
- NIST September 2027 seminar — Official schedule, fee and broad introductory scope
- NIST Basic Uncertainty Concepts — Official course overview; no attendance claimed
- Journal of Open Hardware — Official scope and no-fee policy
- HardwareX publisher listing — Publisher search listing reports USD 980 excluding taxes; direct page access blocked; recheck before budgeting
- arXiv endorsement — Official submission policy; endorsement is not scientific peer review