Feature Request/Idea: Clarify interaction between Private URLs and “Submit for Review” to prevent unintended publication

[sbarbosadataverse]

Problem
Users are confused about how Private URLs, Submit for Review, and Publish (in collections) work together, leading to:

1. Root deposits + Submit for Review

Users create a Private URL for journal peer review, then also click Submit for Review, assuming it is part of the same “peer review” process.
Result: datasets are unintentionally sent to the curation/publication workflow and can be published prematurely.
Collection deposits + self‑publish

2. In collections where depositors can self‑publish,
   They create a Private URL for peer review but then click Publish, assuming publication is needed for journal review access.

Result: datasets are self‑published when they were intended to remain draft‑only with a Private URL.
Misuse of Private URL as a citable DOI

3. Depositors believe the Private URL is the link/DOI they should give to journals for final citation.
   In reality, the Private URL is temporary and disappears once the dataset is published; the correct citable link is the public dataset landing page URL/DOI.
   Result: broken or changed links in manuscripts and journal systems after publication.

Note: The improved collections feature and the move to collection‑only deposits may change some of this workflow but do not remove the underlying confusion.

Problems (Summary)

Users conflate two distinct workflows:

• Private URL → draft‑only access for journal reviewers / collaborators
• Submit for Review / Publish → curation & public publication workflow
• Leads to:
• Premature submission/publication before article/peer review is complete
• Extra work for repository staff to catch, undo, or manage unintended publications
• Journals receiving Private URLs that later disappear or change, causing citation confusion

Proposed Improvements

UI Text & Warnings (root and collections)

On Submit for Review and Publish (collections):
Add clear language that these actions send the dataset into the publication workflow (and are not required for journal peer review).
Example confirmation when a Private URL exists:
“This dataset has a Private URL for peer review. Submitting for review/publishing sends it to the repository’s publication workflow and may make it public. Continue?”

Private URL Panel / Help Text

Add explicit text such as:
“Use this link to share your draft with journal reviewers or collaborators.”
“You do not need to ‘Submit for Review’ or ‘Publish’ for journal peer review access.”
“This Private URL is temporary and will no longer exist once the dataset is published. For citation in your article and in the journal’s records, use the published dataset URL/DOI, which will appear after your dataset is published.”

Collections‑specific messaging

In collections where depositors can self‑publish, add explicit guidance (e.g., banner or tooltip):
“If your dataset is under journal peer review, do not publish yet. Use the Private URL to share a draft with reviewers and only publish when ready for public release.”

[sbarbosadataverse]

I want to note that once a feature is developed that would address all of these problems when a user signs into production, we ask the following questions in the "action" options, outside of "add a collection, and add data." The documentation and UI improvements above can then be added to each possible action.

1. Create a collection to manage all of your research data.
2. Deposit a dataset and submit it to the repository for publishing
3. Deposit your dataset into a journal for review (list only journals with submit for review to avoid spammers)
4. Deposit a dataset for anonymous/private review

We are not highlighting all of the awesome workflows we offer.

[pdurbin]

I'm just adding something I wrote in Slack the other day. Hope it helps.

---

Thanks, the ticket provides a lot of context. I agree it's confusing. From this depositor's perspective, the next thing they want to do is submit their dataset for review by peer reviewers. So I can see why the "Submit for Review" button is so tempting!

But as we know, that button is for submitting the dataset to curators, an indication that they are ready to publish. It's the wrong button to click in this case. 😬

Rename that button to "Submit for Publication"? (Review by a curator would be implied.)

And add a button called "Submit for Peer Review"? This button would bring up the popup to create a Preview URL.

---

Also, I just checked and when you don't have permission to publish, you don't have permission to create a Preview URL either. It would appear under "Edit Dataset". Here's a screenshot showing how it's not there. I'm also showing the Submit for Review popup.

This is actually related to something @Falco-KUB brought up just today:

"I'm wondering what the benefits and disadvantages would be for having the creation and deletion of Preview URLs as separate permission (I guess that it is currently part of 'ManageDatasetPermissions'?).

This could allow users in a curated repository (who have the 'contributor' role on their own datasets) to manage their own Preview URLs without having to involve an administrator."

As it stands now, my "Submit for Peer Review" button idea would only work for people who have permission to publish, to create a Preview URL.

Lots to unpack and think through! 😅