Public does not mean peer reviewed
A preprint enables rapid access, discussion and an early public record. It is nevertheless a manuscript version rather than the journal’s version of record. Readers should be able to see its review status and locate later versions, especially when conclusions change.
Rules differ among journals, disciplines and servers. Some journals welcome relevant preprints; others limit eligible servers, timing or publicity. Save the policy that applied when you decided to post, and ask the editorial office about genuine ambiguity. General custom cannot override the selected journal’s current terms.
Resolve people, sensitive content and permissions
All authors should approve the actual file, byline order, licence and public posting. Review confidential data, identifiable participants, patents, embargoes and collaborator agreements. Removing a preprint later cannot guarantee that downloaded copies disappear.
Check every third-party figure, table, map and instrument. Permission for use in a journal may not include a public server. Record funding and competing interests under the applicable rules. Freeze the posted bytes and preserve their checksum, identifier and posting receipt.
Disclose the preprint during submission
Answer every prior-dissemination question completely. In the cover letter, give the server, persistent identifier, posting date and relationship to the submitted manuscript. Identify material changes in authorship, data, analysis or conclusion. Provide the earlier version rather than expecting an editor to discover and compare it unaided.
The manuscript itself may require a citation or availability statement. Use the server’s recommended citation and retain its version label. For anonymised review, follow the journal’s instructions. Do not improvise concealment where the editor separately requires full disclosure.
A preprint and submission are normally versions of one work, not two independent research papers. Where several papers emerge from shared data, use the salami-slicing matrix. For repeated passages, apply the text-recycling audit.
Update the chain after acceptance
When an article is accepted or published, add the version-of-record DOI and status to the preprint record if the server supports it. Do not assume that the final publisher PDF can be uploaded. The agreement and journal policy determine whether the preprint, accepted manuscript or another version may remain in a repository.
Material differences deserve a version note. Copyediting need not be catalogued line by line, but a changed dataset, analysis or conclusion must not remain hidden from preprint readers. Persistent identifiers are preferable to fragile links.
If the journal article is corrected or retracted, update the preprint context. A public manuscript should not continue as an apparently unqualified alternative when its central result is no longer reliable. Preserve history through version, comment or withdrawal notices rather than silent deletion.
Common breaks in the version chain
- Posting without approval from every author.
- Checking journal policy only after dissemination.
- Confusing rights in your text with rights in third-party material.
- Omitting the preprint from submission questions.
- Leaving preprint and article online without status links.
- Uploading a publisher PDF despite different archiving rights.
- Failing to propagate a material correction.
Check bibliographic databases and author profiles after indexing. A missing relation can leave the preprint appearing to be the latest version or create misleading duplicate records. Keep correction requests to the server, journal and metadata service separate, and do not alter scientific content merely to tidy a profile.
Maintain one readable version register
For each stage, record filename, checksum, status, date, responsible person, persistent identifier and destination. A screenshot is not enough when it cannot be tied to the exact file. Preserve editorial confirmation where an unusual preprint status was approved.
The publication ethics hub gathers related submission guidance. The single foundation route is the evidence-review guide. A simple chain should remain readable: preprint ID, submitted file, manuscript ID, accepted version and version of record.
A concise disclosure could state: “An earlier version of this manuscript was posted on [date] at [DOI/URL]. The submitted version [lists material changes or states that the principal analysis is unchanged]. All authors approved this submission.” Replace brackets with verified facts and adapt the wording to journal policy.