When people think about preprints, arXiv is often the first platform that comes to mind.
It is understandable. arXiv is one of the most influential repositories in modern academic publishing, particularly in computer science, mathematics, physics, and related fields.
But my own research strategy has led me in a somewhat different direction.
I increasingly use Zenodo as the central repository for my research outputs, while building a broader research identity around HAL and ORCID.
This is not because I consider arXiv inferior.
It is because I am trying to solve a different problem.
I am not only asking:
“Where can I upload my paper?”
I am asking:
“How do I build a durable, internationally visible research infrastructure around my work?”
That distinction matters.
Zenodo is more than a preprint server
For my purposes, Zenodo is particularly attractive because it allows me to treat research outputs as persistent research assets rather than merely manuscripts awaiting publication.
A research project can contain much more than a PDF.
There may be:
- papers
- datasets
- source code
- computational models
- supplementary materials
- presentations
- documentation
- revised versions
- experimental artifacts
Zenodo provides a way to bring these components into a persistent, DOI-based research environment.
The DOI is particularly important.
A repository URL can change.
A social-media post can disappear.
A personal website can be redesigned.
A cloud-storage link can break.
But a DOI is designed to function as a persistent scholarly identifier.
For an independent researcher trying to build an international research presence, that distinction is significant.
I want my research outputs to remain identifiable and citable independently of whatever website or platform happens to be popular at a particular moment.
Humanity has spent decades inventing increasingly elaborate ways to lose PDFs, so persistent identifiers seem like a reasonable countermeasure.
Why I use HAL as well
If Zenodo is the central repository for my research assets, HAL plays a different but complementary role.
HAL, the French national open archive, is particularly interesting from the perspective of European research infrastructure.
My interest in HAL is not simply about obtaining another place to upload the same PDF.
It is about placing my research within a broader open-science ecosystem.
For a researcher interested in international collaboration, European research networks, and eventually programs such as Horizon Europe, this matters.
Research infrastructure is not neutral.
Where research is deposited, how it is identified, how it can be discovered, and how it can be connected to other researchers all affect its visibility.
That is why I do not see Zenodo and HAL as competing repositories.
I see them as complementary layers.
Zenodo gives me a flexible, DOI-centered environment for research objects.
HAL gives me another institutional and European-facing layer of open dissemination.
The goal is not to upload the same file everywhere for the sake of collecting profile pages.
The goal is interoperability.
ORCID is the identity layer
Repositories solve one problem.
They tell the world where the research output is.
ORCID solves another.
It tells the world who produced it.
This distinction becomes increasingly important as a research portfolio grows.
Names are surprisingly unreliable identifiers.
There can be multiple researchers with the same name. Names can be transliterated differently. Publications can appear under different institutional affiliations. Researchers can move between universities and organizations.
An ORCID iD provides a persistent identifier connecting the researcher to their scholarly activities.
For me, this makes ORCID part of the infrastructure rather than a decorative profile page.
My basic architecture therefore looks something like this:
Researcher identity → ORCID
Research outputs → Zenodo
European/open repository layer → HAL
Research discovery → scholarly indexes and research profiles
Code and reproducibility → GitHub and related infrastructure
These systems serve different purposes, but together they form something much more useful than a collection of disconnected profiles.
Why not simply use arXiv?
I still consider arXiv extremely important.
For certain fields, particularly mathematics and computer science, arXiv has enormous disciplinary visibility.
If the primary objective were simply to distribute a technical preprint to a specific research community, arXiv would often be an obvious choice.
My objective is broader.
Much of my research is interdisciplinary.
My interests include dynamic systems, non-classical logic, game theory, computation, complex systems, ethics, philosophy, computational social science, and related areas.
That creates a problem.
A research project does not necessarily fit neatly into one disciplinary repository.
Zenodo’s broader scope is therefore useful for the type of research portfolio I am building.
I am interested in publishing not only papers, but also the surrounding intellectual and computational artifacts.
That makes Zenodo particularly suitable for my workflow.
So my choice is not:
Zenodo good, arXiv bad.
It is:
Different repositories solve different problems.
And for my current research strategy, Zenodo is the better central hub.
Open science as infrastructure
There is another reason I take this seriously.
I do not want open science to mean simply:
“I uploaded a PDF and made it publicly accessible.”
That is useful, but it is only the beginning.
A more mature approach is to think about research as an interconnected information system.
A paper should have a persistent identifier.
The researcher should have a persistent identifier.
The code should be discoverable.
The data should be documented when appropriate.
Versions should be distinguishable.
Research outputs should be machine-discoverable.
Repositories should expose metadata.
The entire structure should ideally be interoperable with other scholarly systems.
This is especially important as research becomes increasingly computational.
A modern research project can behave more like a software project than a traditional printed article.
The PDF is the visible interface.
Behind it may be models, datasets, code, formalizations, documentation, and revision histories.
Treating all of those components as research assets makes much more sense to me than treating the PDF as the entire research project.
Why Horizon Europe is part of the picture
This infrastructure also connects to a longer-term objective.
I am interested in eventually participating in the European research ecosystem, including Horizon Europe.
That does not mean that having a Zenodo account, an ORCID iD, or a HAL profile somehow qualifies someone for Horizon Europe.
It obviously does not.
European research funding is not a Pokémon collection where acquiring enough profile pages unlocks the legendary grant.
The point is different.
If I want to participate seriously in international research collaborations in the future, I should build the infrastructure required for those collaborations before I need it.
That means having:
- a persistent researcher identity
- publicly accessible research outputs
- stable scholarly identifiers
- reproducible research artifacts where appropriate
- an internationally discoverable research record
- an open-science workflow
- research outputs that can be connected across platforms
I would rather build this infrastructure now than discover ten years later that my research history is scattered across personal websites, expired links, social-media posts, and forgotten cloud folders.
Building before scaling
There is a broader principle behind this strategy.
I am still building my research career.
That means I have an unusual opportunity.
I can design the infrastructure of my research activity from the beginning instead of trying to reconstruct it later.
The scale of the research portfolio may currently be modest compared with established laboratories and universities.
But infrastructure does not need to wait for scale.
In fact, the opposite may be true.
The earlier persistent identifiers, versioning, open repositories, documentation, and reproducibility practices are incorporated into the workflow, the easier it becomes to scale later.
My objective is therefore not to imitate the publication strategy of an established professor.
It is to construct a research system that can eventually support international collaboration.
The bigger picture
My preference for Zenodo is ultimately part of a larger philosophy of research.
I want research outputs to be:
persistent, identifiable, interoperable, accessible, and reusable.
Zenodo provides an important part of that infrastructure.
HAL provides another.
ORCID provides the identity layer.
GitHub can connect research with computational work.
Scholarly indexes and research profiles provide additional discovery layers.
None of these platforms is the research itself.
They are infrastructure around the research.
That distinction is important.
The ultimate goal is not to accumulate profile pages.
The goal is to make the research easier to discover, verify, cite, reuse, and connect with other researchers.
And if the long-term objective is participation in international research networks and eventually Horizon Europe, building that infrastructure early seems considerably more rational than waiting until the application deadline to discover that nobody can figure out who produced what.
For me, Zenodo is therefore not an alternative to serious academic publishing. It is part of the infrastructure that makes serious open research possible.
That is why I use Zenodo heavily, maintain HAL and ORCID carefully, and think about research dissemination as an infrastructure problem rather than merely a publishing problem.
The paper is only one node.
The research ecosystem around it is the real system.
Top comments (0)