Preprints and accepted manuscripts: which version can you share?

The file you are allowed to share may not be the file you have open. A preprint, an accepted manuscript and a publisher’s version of record can contain closely related text while carrying different permissions and publication status.

Before uploading anything, identify the version, the intended destination and the applicable permission. Then check timing, licence and any material you do not control. This guide is a practical record-keeping method, not a determination of your institution’s, funder’s or jurisdiction’s requirements.

Identify the version from its history

A preprint is a publicly shared manuscript version that has not acquired the journal’s peer-reviewed publication status. A preprint may be revised, so retain its version date and identifier rather than treating every copy as the same object.

An accepted manuscript, often called an author accepted manuscript or AAM, is the version accepted after the editorial and review process, before the publisher’s final production work. The version of record is the publisher’s formally published version. Proofs can be a separate stage and should not automatically be treated as either the AAM or the version of record.

NISO/ALPSP’s journal-article-version recommendations distinguish accepted manuscripts, proofs and versions of record. That terminology helps identify a file, but the 2008 document is not permission to post it today. 1

Use the file’s provenance rather than its visual appearance. Removing a publisher’s logo from a PDF does not turn it into an accepted manuscript. A Word document is not necessarily an AAM if it predates the final accepted revisions. Keep the acceptance correspondence and the exact accepted file together so the distinction remains recoverable.

Separate permission to post from permission to submit

A preprint raises at least two questions: may you post this material on the selected server, and will the target journal consider a manuscript that has been posted there? The server’s upload process does not answer the journal question.

PLOS One provides a specific example of preprint integration, including links between a preprint and an eventual published article. Its preprint screening is separate from editorial assessment. Posting is not acceptance, and this policy should not be assumed to apply to every journal. 2

Check the target journal’s policy before posting if later journal consideration is important. Identify any article-type or discipline-specific exceptions. If the manuscript has already been posted, disclose that fact accurately when the journal asks, including the identifier and relevant version.

Also check the server’s conditions. Determine which licence options are offered, how versions are handled and what happens if a correction or withdrawal is needed. Do not assume that a publicly posted file can later be made to disappear simply because the team changes its preferred journal.

Discuss posting with all authors before uploading. The act makes the work public and may have implications beyond journal policy, including permissions attached to the material. Obtain appropriate institutional advice where confidentiality, patenting or contractual commitments are involved.

Match the destination to the permission

A permission for an institutional repository is not automatically a permission for every public website. A personal page, subject repository, commercial networking platform and publisher platform may be treated differently by the relevant agreement.

Elsevier’s sharing policy is an illustrative example: it distinguishes versions and destinations, includes embargo conditions for some accepted-manuscript sharing and identifies journal-specific exceptions. It should be read as one publisher’s framework, not a rule for all articles. 3

Write down the intended destination by name. “Online” is not specific enough. Ask the repository team which version they need, what metadata they will display and whether they can manage a delayed public release where that is appropriate.

Check whether the permission concerns a private copy or a publicly accessible one. Sending a file to a collaborator, placing it in a closed institutional system and posting it for anyone to download are different actions. Do not use permission for one as an answer to another.

If your institution has a rights-retention policy or your funder imposes an access requirement, ask the library how it interacts with the proposed agreement. This guide cannot decide priority between legal instruments or institutional obligations from a journal name alone.

Read embargo rules as dated conditions

If a route includes an embargo, identify its duration and the event from which it runs. The acceptance date, first online publication date and issue date are not interchangeable. Use the actual rule rather than calculating from whichever date is easiest to find.

Record the release date that the repository team confirms. Distinguish depositing a file in a controlled repository system from making its full text publicly accessible. A repository may offer separate processes for those actions; ask rather than assuming.

If a funder requires earlier access than the proposed route appears to allow, raise that conflict before signing terms. Do not simply choose the shorter period because it is preferable, or the longer one because it appears safer. The applicable rights and obligations need an informed resolution.

Keep the evidence behind the date: policy link, agreement, written clarification and the person who checked it. If publication timing changes, revisit the calculation. A calendar reminder is useful only if it is based on the correct trigger and version.

Choose a licence with the rights you actually hold

A licence is more than an open-access badge. Identify the full name and version, and understand the permissions and conditions it grants. Creative Commons explains that its licences are irrevocable for recipients who comply with their terms; changing your mind later does not simply cancel permissions already granted. 4

CC BY 4.0, for example, allows sharing and adaptation, including commercial uses, subject to attribution and other terms. Its deed also warns that privacy, publicity, moral rights or other permissions may still matter. 5

Do not assume that every Creative Commons licence has the same conditions. If you encounter NonCommercial, NoDerivatives or ShareAlike terms, read the exact licence and seek advice about your intended use. In particular, a restriction on sharing adaptations should not be paraphrased carelessly as a ban on every private alteration or every use permitted by an exception.

The licence for a preprint is not automatically the licence for a later publisher version. Keep each version’s terms attached to that version. Do not copy the licence label from one file to another because the title and authors are the same.

Check third-party material before releasing the file

Make an inventory of material not created entirely by the author team: reproduced figures, photographs, survey instruments, maps, lengthy extracts or other incorporated content. Record the source and the permission or licence relied upon.

Ask whether that permission covers this version, destination and access arrangement. A permission obtained for a specific journal article may need examination before the same material is included in a public preprint or repository copy. Do not assume that permission to cite a source is permission to reproduce its content.

Use clear credit lines and exclusions where required. If a figure is not covered by the article’s general licence, make that distinction visible rather than allowing readers to assume the licence applies to everything in the file.

Creative Commons’ guidance stresses the limits of the rights a licensor can grant. 4 If the team does not control a relevant right, ask the rights holder or an institutional specialist what is needed. Replacing or omitting material may be an option, but make sure the shared version still communicates the study accurately and clearly labels any difference.

Do not remove essential evidence merely to make the permission problem less visible. If an item cannot be shared, explain the limitation and how authorised readers can access it where appropriate.

The version–permission–destination worksheet

Complete one row for each file you plan to make public. This is a blank record, not a determination that any route is permitted.

Field	Entry to complete
Manuscript title and authors	___
Exact file name and version date	___
Version type and evidence	Preprint / AAM / proof / version of record; evidence: ___
Intended destination	Named repository, server or website: ___
Permission basis	Agreement, policy or licence and relevant provision: ___
Public release timing	Immediate / date / unresolved; trigger: ___
Licence for this file	Full name and version, if applicable: ___
Third-party material	Permissions, exclusions or replacements: ___
Required acknowledgement or link	___
Funder or institutional check	Office, date and conclusion: ___
Author approval and depositor	___
Final record URL	___

For uncertain fields, write the question and who will resolve it. Do not treat a completed table as authorisation if its permission row still says “probably allowed”. Resolve the condition before taking the dependent action.

Have the repository team inspect the actual file where possible. A description such as “final manuscript” can hide whether it contains publisher production changes. A file check is more reliable than a discussion based on ambiguous names.

A deposit request for the library

Use this template to obtain a focused review:

We would like to deposit [title] in [repository]. The attached or securely linked file is [version], supported by [acceptance or version evidence]. The journal is [title, ISSN], and the article is [submission/acceptance/publication status and dates].

The relevant policy or agreement appears to permit [proposed route], subject to [conditions]. The research is supported by [funder and grant, where relevant], and [institutional requirement] may also apply.

Could you confirm the appropriate file, public release date, licence and acknowledgement? The following third-party material needs checking: [list or none identified]. We have not yet made the file public.

Do not send restricted data through an ordinary email attachment if that would breach your institution’s rules. Provide an approved secure location or ask how the team should inspect it. The manuscript and its underlying dataset may require different access arrangements.

Link versions so readers can follow the record

When a journal article appears, update the preprint or repository record through the host’s supported process to link the version of record. Retain version labels and dates so that a reader can distinguish what they are viewing. Do not describe the preprint as peer reviewed merely because a related journal article now exists.

If the text changed substantially during review, make that relationship clear in the metadata or version note where the platform permits it. The journal article and preprint may no longer support precisely the same wording or numerical result.

When citing a version, cite the one you actually used and follow the relevant style and journal instructions. If a later version changes the evidence relevant to your argument, reassess the citation rather than merely updating its URL.

Keep supplementary materials and data links aligned with the version. A manuscript pointing to a missing or superseded supplement is difficult to interpret even if the main file’s permissions are correct.

Keep a simple version handover

When a collaborator or librarian deposits the file on your behalf, send the exact approved file and the completed permission record together. State whether a public release is authorised now or requires a later check. Do not send several similarly named PDFs and expect the depositor to infer which one is appropriate.

After deposit, open the public record and check the title, author list, version label, licence, file and links. Save its stable address with the manuscript records. If a later correction changes the article, this record tells the team which repositories and preprint entries may also need attention.

If the wrong file has already been posted

Preserve a record of what was uploaded and when. Contact the repository or platform administrator promptly, explain the specific version or permission issue and ask about the appropriate correction process. Do not assume you can resolve it by changing a filename while leaving the same public content in place.

If the problem involves confidential or personal material, contact the relevant institutional office through its established process. If it concerns a publishing agreement, ask the library or rights specialist to help identify the applicable terms.

Replace or restrict the file only through an authorised process and keep the record accurate. A platform may retain version history or withdrawal information. Do not promise co-authors that every copy already downloaded can be recalled.

Once resolved, update the worksheet so the same error does not recur with a later version. The useful habit is to connect every public file with its identity, permission and destination before upload, rather than trying to infer those conditions from a familiar title afterward.