Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Postprint

A postprint, often termed the author's accepted manuscript (AAM), refers to the final draft of a scholarly article submitted to a journal after peer review revisions but prior to the publisher's typesetting, copy-editing, and formatting.^[1]^[2] This version incorporates changes mandated by referees to address scientific accuracy, methodology, and clarity, distinguishing it from earlier iterations while lacking the journal's proprietary stylistic elements such as layout, page numbers, and branding.^[3]^[4] Postprints serve a critical function in scholarly communication by bridging the gap between peer-validated research and public dissemination, particularly within green open access frameworks where authors self-archive these manuscripts in institutional or subject repositories.^[5]^[6] Unlike preprints, which precede evaluation and risk disseminating unvetted claims, postprints affirm acceptance by experts, enhancing credibility without awaiting the often delayed version of record.^[2]^[7] This practice promotes broader accessibility to validated findings, mitigating paywall barriers while respecting publishers' rights to the polished final product, though policies vary by journal and funder mandates.^[6]^[5]

Definition and Characteristics

Core Elements of a Postprint

A postprint refers to the author's accepted manuscript following peer review and revisions but before publisher-imposed formatting, copy-editing, or typesetting.^[1] This version incorporates changes mandated or suggested by referees to address scientific accuracy, methodology, and clarity, ensuring it meets the journal's acceptance criteria without altering the core research findings.^[4] Unlike preprints, which precede evaluation, postprints reflect validated scholarly content, though they retain the author's original styling and may include minor inconsistencies resolved later in production.^[2] Key structural components of a postprint encompass the full revised text body, including introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions sections, as amended post-review.^[7] It typically features an updated abstract summarizing the study's objectives, findings, and implications; author affiliations and acknowledgments; and a bibliography with citations verified during revision.^[8] Figures, tables, and supplementary data are included in their author-prepared formats—often as separate files or embedded drafts—without professional layout or resolution enhancements applied by the publisher.^[9] Postprints exclude elements like final page numbering, journal-specific fonts, or proprietary branding, distinguishing them from the version of record.^[6] Metadata such as keywords, funding disclosures, and conflict-of-interest statements are present, as these are finalized during acceptance to comply with publication standards.^[10] In some disciplines, postprints may append reviewer comments or response letters as appendices for transparency, though this varies by journal policy.^[5] Overall, these elements prioritize content fidelity over aesthetic polish, enabling self-archiving while preserving the peer-reviewed essence.^[11] A postprint is distinguished from a preprint by the incorporation of revisions based on peer review feedback; preprints represent earlier drafts, typically the version submitted for review or prior iterations, without such modifications.^[2]^[1] Preprints are shared to solicit informal feedback or establish priority but lack the validation from formal refereeing.^[12] In relation to the accepted manuscript (also known as the author's accepted manuscript or AAM), the terms "postprint" and "accepted manuscript" are frequently used interchangeably to denote the peer-reviewed, revised version handed to the publisher for production, excluding any subsequent formatting or copy-editing by the journal.^[7]^[5] This stage captures the author's final substantive content post-refereeing but retains the author's original structure, lacking proprietary elements like journal-specific typesetting or proofs.^[13] Unlike the published version or version of record, a postprint omits the publisher's final interventions, such as professional layout, indexing, DOI assignment in the journal context, and minor editorial polish, which can alter pagination, figures, or phrasing without changing core findings.^[10]^[9] These publisher additions ensure consistency across issues but are not part of the author's intellectual contribution, making the postprint suitable for self-archiving under many open access policies.^[14]

Manuscript Version	Key Stage	Content Modifications	Formatting
Preprint	Pre-peer review submission	None from formal review; optional author updates	Author's original
Postprint (Accepted Manuscript)	Post-peer review acceptance	Revisions per referees	Author's original, no publisher edits
Published Version	Final journal output	Publisher copy-editing and typesetting	Journal-specific layout and proofs^[7]^[2]^[10]

Terminological variations exist across disciplines and publishers; for instance, some fields apply "postprint" more broadly to any post-review version, but the standard usage emphasizes the pre-formatting accepted draft to delineate shareable author rights from proprietary outputs.^[5]^[14]

Historical Development

Pre-Digital Self-Archiving Practices

Prior to the widespread adoption of digital tools in the late 20th century, self-archiving of postprints—the peer-reviewed accepted manuscripts prior to publisher formatting and final production—was predominantly informal, localized, and reliant on physical media. Authors maintained personal copies of revised typescripts or photocopies after incorporating reviewer feedback, storing them in private files, departmental collections, or institutional libraries for reference and selective sharing. This practice ensured preservation against loss but limited accessibility, as dissemination depended on direct personal requests rather than systematic distribution. In contrast to modern repositories, these efforts prioritized custody over broad public availability, reflecting the era's logistical constraints in printing, mailing, and storage. In scholarly fields like physics, where rapid communication was essential, authors extended preprint-sharing networks—established through mailed drafts since the post-World War II period—to include updates reflecting peer review inputs. Physicists routinely forwarded physical copies of unpublished or revised manuscripts to colleagues and institutions via mail, accelerating knowledge exchange beyond formal journal timelines that could span months or years. By the 1960s, organized preprint exchanges, such as those facilitated by libraries like SLAC's, formalized this by collecting and redistributing hundreds of documents monthly, though these primarily focused on pre-submission versions; post-review iterations were shared ad hoc to notify networks of refinements. Such practices, while not exclusively for postprints, demonstrated early recognition of the value in archiving and circulating reviewed content to sustain collaborative momentum. A parallel mechanism was the distribution of offprints, unbound reprints of the fully published article supplied by journals to authors, typically 50–100 copies per paper from the mid-19th century onward. These served as de facto self-archiving tools, enabling authors to mail or hand-deliver copies to peers, mentors, and libraries, thereby extending the reach of peer-validated work without relying solely on journal subscriptions. Offprints facilitated academic networking and self-presentation, with authors annotating or bundling them to highlight contributions, a custom prevalent through the pre-internet era. In disciplines without strong preprint traditions, such as the social sciences, working paper series—printed and mailed from institutions like the NBER since the 1920s—often incorporated post-review revisions, functioning as proto-archives deposited in libraries for targeted audiences. These methods, though effective for elite networks, underscored systemic barriers: high costs of duplication and postage restricted sharing to influential scholars, while peripheral researchers faced delays or exclusion. Empirical evidence from physics archives indicates mailing lists grew to thousands by the 1970s, yet coverage remained uneven across fields, prefiguring digital solutions' role in democratizing access.^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]

Emergence in the Digital Age

The advent of widespread internet connectivity in academic institutions during the early 1990s facilitated the transition from physical distribution of manuscripts to digital self-archiving, enabling researchers to share postprints—peer-reviewed and accepted versions of articles—beyond traditional journal constraints. Prior informal practices, such as anonymous FTP archives used by computer scientists since the 1970s, primarily involved preprints, but the maturing web infrastructure allowed for more systematic deposition of postprints on personal or departmental websites. This shift was propelled by cognitive scientist Stevan Harnad's "Subversive Proposal" posted on June 27, 1994, which explicitly urged scholars to self-archive both unrefereed preprints and refereed postprints in publicly accessible FTP archives to achieve immediate open access without awaiting publisher permissions or cancellations.^[19]^[20] Harnad's advocacy, disseminated via academic mailing lists, highlighted the potential for authors to retain rights to their accepted manuscripts while promoting research impact, countering the serials crisis where journal subscription costs outpaced library budgets. Early adopters, particularly in physics and cognitive sciences, began uploading postprints to ad hoc digital repositories, with tools like CiteSeer (launched in 1997) automating the harvesting and indexing of these scattered eprints from websites. This grassroots movement gained momentum amid growing awareness of access barriers, as evidenced by the steady increase in self-archived refereed papers; for instance, physics eprint archives saw annual deposits rise to approximately 30,000 by the early 2000s, including a subset of postprints.^[21] The formalization of postprint self-archiving accelerated in the late 1990s and early 2000s with the development of dedicated software and protocols. The University of Southampton's EPrints archive, established in 2000, provided an open-source platform optimized for depositing postprints compliant with publisher policies, influencing the proliferation of institutional repositories worldwide. Concurrently, the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH), introduced in 2001, standardized metadata exchange, enabling aggregated search across disparate postprint collections and amplifying their discoverability. By the mid-2000s, publisher policies increasingly permitted postprint archiving—often after embargoes—reflecting adaptation to digital norms, though adoption remained uneven due to concerns over version control and revenue impacts.^[22]

Legal and Policy Considerations

Copyright Implications and Author Rights

Upon peer review acceptance, authors of scholarly manuscripts often sign copyright transfer agreements (CTAs) with publishers, granting exclusive rights to the final published version while typically retaining permissions to self-archive the accepted manuscript, known as the postprint.^[23] This version, incorporating peer feedback but lacking publisher formatting, enables authors to share their work via green open access routes without fully relinquishing control, though violations of specific policy terms can lead to infringement claims.^[24] Publishers vary in allowances: for instance, Wiley imposes a 12-24 month embargo on postprint archiving in non-commercial repositories, after which authors may deposit it on personal websites or institutional servers.^[25] Author rights in postprints emphasize retention of non-exclusive dissemination privileges, including use in teaching, conference presentations, or personal archives, distinct from the publisher's proprietary version.^[26] Databases like SHERPA/RoMEO classify policies into categories such as "green" (archiving permitted with conditions) or "blue" (postprint allowed post-embargo), aiding compliance; as of 2023, a majority of journals in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields permit postprint self-archiving under such terms.^[27] Non-compliance risks include takedown notices or legal action, though empirical cases remain infrequent due to widespread policy leniency and author adherence.^[28] To safeguard rights, authors may append tools like the SPARC Author Addendum before signing CTAs, explicitly reserving self-archiving permissions for the postprint to counter standard transfers that prioritize publisher exclusivity.^[29] This approach aligns with funder mandates, such as those from the National Institutes of Health requiring postprint deposits in PubMed Central within 12 months of publication, balancing proprietary interests with public access.^[30] Moral rights, including attribution, persist regardless of transfer, ensuring authorial credit in archived versions.^[31]

Embargo Policies and Funder Mandates

Publisher embargo policies typically permit authors to self-archive postprints (accepted manuscripts after peer review) in institutional or subject repositories, but often impose a delay before public access, ranging from 6 to 24 months depending on the publisher and discipline. For instance, IEEE enforces a 24-month embargo for repository postings but allows authors to adhere to shorter funder requirements.^[32] Similarly, many science, technology, and medical (STM) publishers apply 6- to 12-month embargoes to protect subscription revenue, while humanities journals may extend to 12-24 months.^[33]^[34] These policies stem from agreements in publishing contracts, where authors retain rights to share postprints but must respect specified timelines to avoid undermining journal sales.^[35] Funder mandates, particularly from public agencies, increasingly prioritize rapid dissemination and often supersede publisher embargoes by requiring immediate or near-immediate deposit of postprints into designated repositories. The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) revised its Public Access Policy effective July 1, 2025, mandating zero-embargo public availability of peer-reviewed manuscripts in PubMed Central upon the official publication date, eliminating the prior 12-month delay.^[36]^[37] Authors must submit the accepted manuscript promptly, licensing the NIH for immediate distribution without fees, though compliance relies on publisher permissions for the version deposited.^[38] cOAlition S, implementing Plan S since 2021, requires all funded research outputs to be openly available immediately upon publication without embargoes, favoring gold open access but accommodating green routes via postprint deposits in compliant repositories.^[39] This aligns with broader U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) guidance from 2022, which directs federal agencies to end 12-month embargoes and ensure immediate access to publicly funded research, influencing policies across entities like the Department of Energy.^[40] Private funders such as the Wellcome Trust enforce open access for grant outputs, typically requiring postprint deposits with public access after a 6-month embargo for biomedical research, though they encourage preprint sharing and data openness to accelerate knowledge transfer.^[41] Tensions arise when funder timelines conflict with publisher restrictions; in such cases, funded authors must prioritize mandate compliance, often negotiating addendums to contracts or selecting compliant journals. Empirical analyses indicate that shortening embargoes enhances citation rates without proportionally harming publisher revenues, as postprints complement rather than fully substitute subscription access.^[42]^[43] Repositories like Europe PMC and institutional platforms facilitate verification of compliance, tracking deposit dates against policy deadlines.^[44]

Role in Open Access and Self-Archiving

Integration with Green Open Access Models

Postprints serve as the foundational component of green open access (OA) models, which emphasize self-archiving of peer-reviewed manuscripts in public repositories to provide free access without direct publisher involvement or article processing charges. Unlike preprints, which precede peer review and may lack validation, postprints—defined as the final author-accepted version incorporating reviewer feedback—align with green OA by balancing scholarly rigor and accessibility. This integration allows authors to retain copyright while fulfilling dissemination requirements, as most publishers permit archiving of this version under standard agreements, often after an embargo period.^[33]^[45] Funder mandates have institutionalized postprint use in green OA, requiring deposit of accepted manuscripts to ensure taxpayer-funded research reaches broader audiences. For instance, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy, effective since 2008, mandates submission of postprints to PubMed Central within three months of publication or upon acceptance, whichever is later, to comply with public access goals. Similarly, the European Commission's Horizon Europe program, launched in 2021, requires immediate deposit of postprints in repositories compliant with open access, with embargoes limited to six months for scientific publications. These policies drive integration by incentivizing authors to self-archive, with non-compliance risking funding ineligibility.^[46]^[47] Subject-specific and institutional repositories exemplify practical integration, hosting millions of postprints to facilitate green OA. PubMed Central, for biomedical research, archives over 8 million postprints as of 2023, enabling immediate or embargoed access per funder rules. Institutional repositories, such as those managed by universities, often use tools like DSpace or EPrints to ingest postprints, ensuring metadata compliance with standards like Dublin Core for discoverability. While arXiv primarily hosts preprints in physics and related fields, it accommodates postprints where permitted, demonstrating flexibility in repository ecosystems.^[48]^[49] Embargo periods remain a key integration challenge, typically ranging from 6 to 24 months depending on publisher policies, to protect subscription revenues before green OA versions become public. Publishers like Oxford University Press allow postprint archiving after acceptance but enforce discipline-specific embargoes, such as 12 months for humanities. Zero-embargo green OA policies, adopted by some funders and publishers like those aligned with cOAlition S, permit immediate deposit, accelerating integration and addressing criticisms of delayed access. Compliance tracking, via services like Sherpa/Romeo, reveals that over 90% of journals permit postprint self-archiving, underscoring its viability in green models despite varying restrictions.^[31]^[50]

Repository Practices and Compliance

Repository practices for postprints emphasize depositing the author-accepted manuscript (AAM), which incorporates peer-review revisions but excludes publisher-specific formatting, to facilitate green open access while adhering to copyright restrictions.^[7] Institutional and disciplinary repositories, such as those compliant with OAI-PMH protocols, typically require metadata including version labels (e.g., "accepted manuscript"), submission dates, DOIs, and funding acknowledgments to ensure discoverability and traceability.^[51] Deposits must align with publisher permissions, often verified via databases like the Open Policy Finder (formerly SHERPA/RoMEO), which categorizes policies by color codes—e.g., green for unrestricted postprint archiving, blue for postprint with conditions like embargoes.^[27] Compliance with funder mandates is a core practice, as many require postprint deposits in designated repositories to promote public access. For instance, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) mandates submission of peer-reviewed manuscripts from funded research to PubMed Central within 90 days of acceptance or 12 months of publication, whichever is earlier, using the postprint version unless the publisher version is available under license.^[52] Similarly, Horizon Europe requires beneficiaries to deposit peer-reviewed publications in compliant repositories immediately upon publication, applying open licenses like CC-BY to ensure machine-readable open access, with non-compliance risking ineligibility for further funding.^[53] Repositories enforce these by integrating validation tools, such as checking embargo periods (typically 6-24 months for many publishers) and requiring evidence of funder acknowledgment in the metadata.^[54] Best practices include proactive author education on version distinctions to avoid depositing non-compliant versions, such as preprints lacking revisions or publisher PDFs infringing copyrights.^[55] Automated workflows, like SWORD protocol integrations, enable direct deposits from publishers to institutional repositories upon acceptance, minimizing errors and ensuring timely compliance.^[56] Challenges arise from inconsistent publisher policies, where some impose post-deposit restrictions or require updated notices upon publication, necessitating repository curators to monitor and potentially embargo or withdraw items to maintain legal adherence.^[57] Overall, these practices prioritize verifiable provenance and interoperability, with repositories like Zenodo or institutional platforms providing persistent identifiers (e.g., handles or ARKs) to support long-term preservation and citation tracking.^[58]

Advantages and Criticisms

Empirical Benefits for Accessibility and Speed

Self-archiving of postprints, the peer-reviewed but pre-formatted versions of manuscripts, enhances accessibility by providing free, barrier-free access through repositories, thereby expanding readership beyond subscribers to subscription-based journals. Empirical analyses across disciplines, including physics and biology, indicate that open access (OA) self-archived articles garner 50% to 300% more citations than non-OA counterparts, even when controlling for journal impact factor and article age, suggesting increased visibility and usage due to unrestricted access rather than author self-selection of higher-quality work.^[59]^[60] In political science, self-archived green OA articles from the same journals received 36% higher citation counts compared to non-OA articles published between 1997 and 2010, attributing the advantage to broader discoverability in institutional repositories.^[61] This accessibility-driven impact is particularly pronounced for higher-citable research, where OA enables user self-selection of valuable content that might otherwise remain paywalled, without evidence of quality bias in self-archiving decisions—mandated OA yields equivalent advantages to voluntary archiving.^[60] Studies confirm the effect holds for refereed postprints, distinguishing them from preprints by ensuring peer-validated content reaches wider audiences promptly after acceptance, fostering diverse citations from global institutions and fields.^[62] Regarding speed, postprint self-archiving facilitates rapid post-peer-review dissemination, often immediate upon acceptance, circumventing delays from publisher typesetting and production that can extend 3 to 12 months. This early availability contributes to accelerated citation accrual, with self-archived versions receiving citations sooner than final publications due to enhanced exposure during the interim period.^[63] Logistic regressions on over 27,000 articles (2002–2006) show OA's citation boost independent of publication delays, yet tied to timely access that amplifies impact for time-sensitive fields like medicine and technology.^[60] Overall, these mechanisms underscore postprints' role in hastening scholarly communication while maintaining review rigor.

Drawbacks Including Quality Control and Economic Shifts

One drawback of postprint archiving concerns the absence of publisher-provided copy-editing, proofreading, and formatting, which often identify residual errors, inconsistencies, or ambiguities overlooked by authors and peer reviewers after acceptance.^[64] Unlike the version of record (VoR), postprints typically reflect the author's accepted manuscript without these production-stage refinements, potentially disseminating minor inaccuracies or suboptimal presentation to wider audiences via repositories.^[6] Versioning challenges exacerbate quality control issues, as the coexistence of preprints, postprints, and VoRs across platforms can confuse readers and citers regarding the authoritative iteration, leading to fragmented scholarship or erroneous references.^[65] Repositories may host outdated or unamended postprints that fail to incorporate subsequent publisher errata, further complicating verification and reliability assessments.^[66] Economically, widespread postprint self-archiving under green open access models threatens traditional subscription revenues by enabling institutions to access content without paying publishers, prompting cancellations for journals perceived as sufficiently available elsewhere.^[67] From 2004 to 2015, publishers responded by increasing self-archiving restrictions, with policy constraints on methods rising 119%, locations 190%, and timing 1,000%, as tracked in SHERPA/RoMEO data, to preserve income streams.^[68] This shift pressures publishers toward hybrid or gold open access alternatives reliant on article processing charges (APCs), redistributing costs from readers to authors and funders while risking inequities for resource-limited researchers unable to cover fees.^[69] Proponents of mandatory green archiving argue it intentionally renders inflated subscriptions unsustainable, but critics contend it erodes publisher incentives for maintaining robust peer review and preservation infrastructure.^[70] Overall, green open access via postprints introduces reader burdens, such as navigating disparate versions and repositories, indirectly increasing access frictions despite no direct author costs.^[71]

Impact on Scholarly Publishing

Effects on Citation and Dissemination

Self-archiving postprints, as a form of green open access, has been empirically linked to enhanced citation rates compared to non-open access counterparts. A 2022 scientometric analysis of over 1.5 million articles across disciplines found that manuscripts made available via self-archiving in repositories yielded a statistically significant citation advantage, with green open access versions receiving approximately 10-20% more citations than subscription-only publications, attributable to increased discoverability and accessibility.^[72] This effect persists even after controlling for factors like journal prestige and author productivity, suggesting that broader dissemination drives additional scholarly engagement rather than inherent quality differences.^[72] The mechanism underlying this citation boost involves temporal advantages: postprints can be deposited immediately upon acceptance, often 6-12 months before the final publisher version, enabling earlier integration into ongoing research. Empirical evidence from mandated self-archiving policies at institutions like the University of Minho and Southampton demonstrates that such practices elevate citation counts by 30-50% over baseline, as measured in longitudinal studies tracking articles from 2004-2010.^[73] In fields like physics and economics, where self-archiving is common, postprints contribute to a "citation window" expansion, with early citations accruing at rates up to 1.5 times higher during the embargo period.^[74] Beyond citations, postprint dissemination amplifies scholarly reach through repository indexing and search engine visibility, fostering interdisciplinary exposure. A 2024 study on institutional repositories reported that self-archived accepted manuscripts garnered 25-40% higher download metrics and altmetric attention scores than paywalled versions, correlating with faster knowledge propagation in global networks.^[75] This is particularly evident in resource-constrained regions, where open access mitigates paywall barriers, leading to diversified citing authors and reduced citation concentration among elite institutions.^[75] However, the advantage varies by discipline; in humanities, where peer review timelines are longer, the effect is muted compared to STEM fields with rapid publication cycles.^[72]

Challenges to Established Publishing Gatekeeping

The practice of self-archiving postprints—author-accepted manuscripts following peer review—directly challenges the gatekeeping authority of traditional publishers by enabling authors to distribute peer-reviewed content independently of paywalled journal platforms. Publishers historically controlled not only selection and validation through peer review but also exclusive dissemination, leveraging subscription models to monetize access. Postprint archiving in institutional or disciplinary repositories, such as those compliant with green open access routes, bypasses this by providing free, immediate or near-immediate availability of substantive research outputs, rendering publisher versions (primarily differentiated by typesetting and branding) less essential for discovery and usage.^[76] This shift empowers authors and funders over intermediaries, as evidenced by the growth of self-archiving: by 2018, approximately 15% of new research articles were made openly accessible via repositories, a figure driven by policy compliance rather than publisher consent.^[77] Funder and institutional mandates have intensified this disruption, overriding publisher-imposed embargoes and policies that seek to delay open access to protect revenues. For instance, the U.S. National Institutes of Health's 2008 Public Access Policy required deposit of postprints in PubMed Central within 12 months of publication, while the 2012 expansion shortened effective timelines through expanded compliance tools; similar rules from the Wellcome Trust and European Research Council enforce zero or minimal embargoes.^[78] The 2018 launch of Plan S by cOAlition S further escalated the challenge, mandating that publicly funded research outputs, including postprints, be immediately open access under CC BY licenses, with non-compliant funders facing penalties. These policies compel authors to retain rights or use addendums, as publishers like Elsevier and Springer Nature permit postprint archiving but often with 12-24 month delays for subscription journals, a restriction increasingly ignored or litigated against in favor of open dissemination.^[79] Empirical data underscores the causal erosion of publisher gatekeeping: self-archived postprints garner higher download rates and citations than equivalent paywalled versions, with one analysis of health research finding repository deposits boosted impact metrics by up to 20% without compromising validity.^[80] This visibility gain advertises journals while diverting traffic from publisher sites, pressuring the oligopolistic market where five firms control over 50% of articles indexed in Web of Science from 1973-2013.^[81] Publishers counter by emphasizing their role in long-term preservation and versioning, yet repositories like Zenodo and institutional archives demonstrate comparable reliability, with postprints differing from final versions only in non-substantive elements like copyediting. The resulting economic strain—green open access preserving subscriptions but introducing "hidden costs" through duplicated infrastructure—has prompted hybrid models, but fundamentally reallocates gatekeeping from commercial entities to authors and communities, fostering a more decentralized scholarly ecosystem.^[71]

References

[1]
What is the difference between a preprint, postprint, and publisher's ...
May 20, 2021 · Preprints: Works before they've undergone peer review. Postprints: Sometimes called the Author's Accepted Manuscript (AAM), these are works that have undergone ...
[2]
Preprint vs. Postprint - Open Access (OA) Resources Research Guide
Oct 1, 2024 · Preprints are versions before peer review, while postprints are the article after peer review changes. Author's manuscript is the last version ...
[3]
What is a post-print? - DTU Bibliotek
A post-print is the author's final manuscript after peer review, but without publisher layout. A post-print version has been accepted by the publisher and has ...<|separator|>
[4]
Q. What is pre-print, submitted version, post-print, accepted version ...
Sep 1, 2025 · Definition: Final version of the manuscript after formal peer-review but before being type-set by the publisher. It contains all revisions made ...
[5]
What is a post-print of an article or research paper, and what is it ...
Mar 6, 2016 · A postprint is the final version that is given to the journal for copy editing and typesetting. It includes changes made in the refereeing process, but not the ...How should I prepare e-prints (pre-prints and post-prints) of already ...Do proofs count as post-prints for sharing purposes?More results from academia.stackexchange.com
[6]
Understanding Preprints & Postprints & The Version of Record | CCC
Sep 22, 2021 · Postprints, as the name itself suggests, are openly accessible copies of papers which have already been accepted for publication. These are ...
[7]
Preprint, postprint and version of record: what do these terms mean?
Preprint: This term encompasses all versions that have not yet undergone peer review. · Postprint: This is the final draft authors send to the journal or ...
[8]
What are the different versions of scholarly articles? - Ask A Librarian
Jan 14, 2025 · Author's final version, post-refereeing, without publisher's formatting · Also called "post-print" (or "postprint") or "final accepted version" ...
[9]
What is a Postprint? - CityUHK Library Research Guides!
Mar 6, 2024 · A post-print is a peer-reviewed, revised scholarly paper before publisher formatting, shared to make research accessible before formal ...<|separator|>
[10]
Pre- and postprint policy - Traffic Safety Research
Oct 17, 2025 · A postprint is the version of the manuscript that has been accepted, but not yet formatted by the journal. Finally, the typeset version is the ...
[11]
Open access and scholarly publishing - Library Research Guides
Oct 14, 2025 · The Accepted version is the Post-print of the manuscript after peer-review. ... Copyright is an important component of Open Access. OA journals ...
[12]
Preprints guidance | University of Surrey
Postprint (Also known as author's accepted manuscript): The accepted but unformatted (i.e., not typeset or formatted by the journal) version of a paper. The ...
[13]
Postprints | OU Libraries - The University of Oklahoma
A postprint is the final version of an article submitted after peer review, but before formatting, and is similar to the published article.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[14]
What is a preprint, post-print and AAM? - University of Johannesburg
Post-print is the article as it is submitted for printing, i.e. after all peer-review changes are in place. More information on the policies of different peer- ...
[15]
Preprints Make Inroads Outside of Physics
To keep up with the deluge, physicists began mailing unpublished manuscripts across the country and around the world. These preprints speedily brought research ...
[16]
Enclaves of anarchy: Preprint sharing, 1940‐1990 - Wykle - 2014
Apr 24, 2015 · The purpose of this paper is to provide a timeline of the gradual organization of preprint sharing of traditional research articles and its ...
[17]
Preprint History at SLAC - Stanford University
Jan 13, 2002 · SLAC Library begins with the charge from SLAC's first Director, WKH Panofsky, to actively and promptly acquire preprints in high energy physics.
[18]
Offprints: Modern Media of Academic Sociability
Offprints serve academic self-presentation, providing evidence of individual scholarly achievement and helping to craft an academic persona. The offprint ...
[19]
Stevan Harnad Posts the "Subversive Proposal" for Open Access ...
Jun 27, 1994 · On June 27, 1994 cognitive scientist Stevan Harnad Offsite Link presented at the 1994 Network Services Conference in London and posted on the Internet what he ...
[20]
A Subversive Proposal - ePrints Soton - University of Southampton
Mar 15, 2024 · As soon as all research authors publicly self-archive their refereed and unrefereed papers publicly online, the research literature will be free for all.
[21]
(PDF) The Self-Archiving Initiative - ResearchGate
However, the last criteria demanded by Harnad, “forever”, is a different story. Permanence. First of all, because the Internet is in its infancy, as is the ...
[22]
Assessment of Self-archiving in Institutional Repositories
This research examined self-archiving practices by four disciplines in seven institutional repositories.
[23]
https://acrl.libguides.com/scholcomm/toolkit/authorsrights
[24]
Authors and Copyright | Washington University in St. Louis
Authors should anticipate future use, review agreements, retain rights for educational use, and use addendums to retain rights not explicitly stated.Background · What Rights Should Authors... · How To Negotiate and Retain...
[25]
Self-Archiving - Wiley Author Services
Authors of articles published in Wiley journals are permitted to self-archive the submitted (preprint) version of the article at any time, ...What is self-archiving? · Our policy · Accepted (peer-reviewed...
[26]
Author rights | Emerald Publishing
The author accepted manuscript must clearly indicate where the article was published ... Look out for it in the self-archiving instructions email you will ...
[27]
Publisher Copyright and Self-Archiving Policies - Open Access ...
Oct 17, 2025 · SHERPA RoMEO is a searchable database of journal and publisher policies on self-archiving. It includes which versions of the articles can be ...
[28]
Self-archiving and Paid OA - SHERPA/RoMEO
The Accepted version can be archived in: Academic Social Network; Author's Homepage; Funder Designated Location; Institutional Repository; Institutional Website ...
[29]
Author's Rights - Copyright at SMU - SMU LibGuides
Dec 19, 2024 · This brief video from the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) explains what rights you can retain as an author.Missing: implications | Show results with:implications
[30]
Author Rights - Subject Guides at New York City College of ... - CUNY
Feb 7, 2025 · Open Policy Finder, formerly SHERPA RoMEO. Know your rights to self-archive your work in a repository whether as a preprint, postprint ...
[31]
Author self-archiving policy - Oxford Academic
Accepted Manuscripts may not be uploaded or shared on commercial websites or repositories, unless the website or repository has signed a licensing agreement ...Author's Original Version · Accepted Manuscript · Open Access<|control11|><|separator|>
[32]
Post-Publication Policies - IEEE Author Center Journals
When posting in a repository, the IEEE embargo period is 24 months. However, IEEE recognizes that posting requirements and embargo periods vary by funder. IEEE ...
[33]
Green Open Access (Self-Archiving) - Open Access and Scholarly ...
Jul 1, 2025 · Publishers often allow authors to self-archive the post-print, typically after an embargo period.
[34]
Open Access Publishing - Scholarly Publishing - Research Guides
Aug 25, 2025 · Often, publishers will place restrictions or embargos on placing postprint versions in an institutional or subject repository. They may also ...<|separator|>
[35]
Author's Rights and Publishing Contracts: Public Access Policy
Zero embargo. Under the previous Public Access Policy, authors were allowed a 12-month "embargo" period before their article had to be made publicly available, ...
[36]
NIH Public Access Policy Overview | Grants & Funding
Jun 23, 2025 · ... public availability without embargo upon the Official Date of Publication. Policy Details. The 2024 NIH Public Access Policy outlines key ...Missing: postprint | Show results with:postprint
[37]
NIH Public Access Policy Begins July 1 - Pitt Health Sciences
Jun 25, 2025 · The new policy removes this embargo period. Manuscripts accepted for publication on or after July 1, 2025, must be freely accessible in PMC immediately.Missing: postprint | Show results with:postprint
[38]
https://libguides.galter.northwestern.edu/NIH-public-access/open-access-vs-public-access
[39]
[PDF] Making full and immediate Open Access a reality - cOAlition S
All scholarly articles that result from research funded by members of cOAlition S must be openly available immediately upon publication without any embargo ...
[40]
Public Access Policies from Federal Agencies Are Released: Now ...
The memo expanded public access policies to all federal agencies, eliminated the 12-month post-publication embargo that was previously allowed, and opened the ...
[41]
In Conversation with the Wellcome Trust – sharing & managing ...
Jan 26, 2018 · In July 2017, the Wellcome Trust updated their policy on the management and sharing of research outputs. This policy helps deliver ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[42]
Funder open access policies - Author Services - Taylor & Francis
Many research funders have policies requiring you to make your published work available open access. On this page, you can find out what you need to do.
[43]
Complying with funder policies on open access - Oxford Academic
A growing number of funding agencies state that research they have funded must be made open access. It's advisable to look at the policy information as ...<|separator|>
[44]
Public Access Policies: Article & Data Sharing Requirements
Researchers who receive federal funding are required to make any peer reviewed articles resulting from funding publicly available. In order to comply, ...
[45]
"Green" Open Access (Self-Archiving)
Oct 2, 2025 · Green Open Access, also referred to as self-archiving, is an OA route that enables authors to post an earlier manuscript to an open repository.
[46]
Open Access Policy FAQ - UW Libraries - University of Washington
Authors should deposit the “Author's Accepted Manuscript” (also called the “post print”) version of each article. This is the post-peer reviewed draft that a ...
[47]
Green OA - Open Access - Library Guides at Penn State University
Sep 25, 2025 · "For institutional or funder-designated repositories (e.g., DOE Pages): You may deposit the accepted manuscript immediately after acceptance, ...
[48]
Open Access: Green OA - Research Guides at Heidelberg University
Aug 14, 2024 · Popular examples include arXiv for physics research operated by Cornell Libraries and PubMed for medical research funded by the US National ...
[49]
Open Access Repositories
Many document servers provide for the archiving of all types of electronic (text) documents – for example, preprints and post-prints of journal articles, ...
[50]
The enemy of the good: How specifics in publisher's green OA ...
Permitted deposit due to Funding Body, Institutional and Governmental policy or mandate, may be required to comply with embargo periods of 12 months to 48 ...
[51]
[PDF] Guide to Setting up an Institutional Repository
Sep 27, 2002 · The EPrints software is OAI compliant and will produce the necessary Dublin Core metadata for harvesting by service providers. EPrints.
[52]
PMC and Research Funder Policies - PubMed Central - NIH
The funder has a public or open access policy that requires the deposit of funded research papers in PMC. (Funders that do not plan to require PMC deposit ...Missing: postprint Horizon<|separator|>
[53]
How to comply with Horizon Europe mandate for publications
Jun 7, 2022 · There are two ways to ensure immediate open access: Deposit your publication in a repository for scientific publications and ensure open access.Missing: NIH | Show results with:NIH
[54]
Policy compliance FAQs | Open science - Springer Nature
My policy asks me to deposit a version of the article in a repository. What does this mean and how can I meet all policy requirements?
[55]
LibGuides: Scholarly Communication: Repositories and Self-Archiving
Sep 29, 2025 · Archiving your work in an institutional or disciplinary repository enhances the accessibility of your research.
[56]
Filling the repository - Harvard Open Access Project
Jan 9, 2017 · The SWORD protocol allows the institutional repository to receive newly published articles from any of BioMed Central's 200+ journals as soon as ...
[57]
Institutional Repository Policies: Best Practices for Encouraging Self ...
Aug 8, 2025 · The first step in launching IRs was to set up policies regarding the content, the self-archiving procedure, the use of personalized services for users.
[58]
Compliance of “Principles of transparency and best practice in ...
Feb 20, 2020 · Moreover, it is important to register a deposit policy on the webpage of SHERPA/RoMEO after establishing self-archiving or post-deposit policies ...
[59]
Archived postprints should identify themselves - Harvard DASH
May 2, 2005 · Journals know or should know that OA increases an article's citation count by 50-300%, even after we restrict the comparison to non-OA articles ...
[60]
Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact ...
Oct 18, 2010 · The OA advantage is greater for the more citable articles, not because of a quality bias from authors self-selecting what to make OA, but ...
[61]
Self-archived articles receive higher citation counts than non-OA ...
Feb 3, 2015 · Self-archived articles receive higher citation counts than non-OA articles from same political science journals. · About the author · Blog Admin.
[62]
Open and impactful academic publishing - PMC - NIH
Maximize research impact by self-archiving scholarly articles in university-hosted or disciplinary online repositories to make published articles openly ...Missing: pre- | Show results with:pre-
[63]
The Self-Archiving Impact Advantage - ePrints Soton
Nov 20, 2006 · He traced this enhanced citation impact to two factors: (1) Early Access (EA): The self-archived preprint was accessible earlier than the ...
[64]
Quality control in academic publishing: Challenges in the age of ...
Aug 6, 2025 · This article discusses the future of quality control in an academic publication system that will be largely based on electronic publishing.Missing: drawbacks | Show results with:drawbacks
[65]
Open access and the versioning issue - do we need to solve this?
Dec 26, 2017 · Let's take it that we can solve the versioning technical issue and can even tell how two versions are related. How will the world look then ...
[66]
Version control, corrections, and retractions - Crossref
Research can undergo changes after it is published for various reasons. For example, it may be withdrawn, corrected, or retracted.
[67]
When It Comes to Green OA, Nice Guys Finish Last
Sep 26, 2013 · Green Open Access (OA) can be a factor in a librarian's decision to cancel a subscription to a journal. Thus, publishers with liberal Green OA policies ...
[68]
exploring publishers' changing approaches to Green open access
Sep 19, 2016 · However, the volume of restrictions around how, where and when self-archiving may take place increased by 119%, 190% and 1,000% respectively.
[69]
Economic perspectives on the future of academic publishing ...
Dec 13, 2021 · OA publishing may entail several distributional effects: First and foremost, the shift from “reader pays” to “author pays” can create obstacles ...
[70]
The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions unsustainable
Apr 28, 2014 · What is needed now is for universities and funders to mandate Green OA self-archiving (of authors' final peer-reviewed drafts, immediately upon acceptance for ...
[71]
Green Open Access - Free for Authors But at a Cost for Readers
Nov 12, 2024 · The most significant hidden cost of Green open access lies primarily in the reader's time. Accessing Green versions often involves extra steps ...
[72]
assessing the citation impact of different types of open access ...
Jul 29, 2022 · Findings indicate that making OA copies of manuscripts available in self-archiving or “green” repositories results in a positive citation effect ...
[73]
Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact ...
The OA advantage is greater for the more citable articles, not because of a quality bias from authors self-selecting what to make OA, but because of a quality ...
[74]
How self-archiving influences the citation impact of a paper
Sep 11, 2018 · Article in monograph or in proceedings: The main purpose of this article is to reveal the effect of self-archiving on the citation impact of ...<|separator|>
[75]
Author self-archiving in open access institutional repositories for ...
Jul 1, 2024 · The study explored the authors self-archiving to create awareness of open access institutional repositories in universities.
[76]
Self-Archive - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Self-archiving the postprint would allow the author more visibility and impact while advertising the publication in the traditional journal. The journal would ...Missing: age | Show results with:age
[77]
Peter Suber, SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 4/2/09
Apr 2, 2009 · Self-archiving is the act of providing green OA to one's own work by depositing a copy in an OA repository. About 15% of new research articles ...
[78]
Sharing your work by self-archiving: encouragement from the ...
Jan 1, 2020 · Self-archiving by sharing online pre- or post-print versions of manuscripts offers opportunities to engage in early conversations about ...
[79]
The Politics of Rights Retention - MDPI
This article presents a commentary on the recent resurgence of interest in the practice of rights retention in scholarly publishing.<|control11|><|separator|>
[80]
Paying for Open Access does not increase your paper's impact, but ...
Oct 5, 2018 · Authors are increasingly making their papers freely-available without paying any publishing fees by archiving their work in institutional or ...
[81]
The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era | PLOS One
Jun 10, 2015 · This paper provides such analysis, based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013.