Decision matrix by publication status
Online-first is not a preprint
An online-first article is generally published by the journal before issue assignment. A preprint appears before completion of formal journal publication, and an accepted manuscript differs from publisher layout. Read the label on the publisher or repository page rather than inferring status from appearance. Terms such as “early view” vary between publishers.
Compare the versions you rely upon
Inspect title, byline, abstract, headings, tables, figures, supplements and notices. Look for changed figures, funding statements, references or pagination. One DOI may resolve to an updated landing page although your stored early PDF differs. Keep the file you read with date and version evidence.
Compare the precise passage supporting your claim. If wording or evidence strength changed, read the later version and revise the citation decision. Never attach issue pagination to a differently paginated online PDF. Use section, paragraph or article number where source and citation style allow.
Keep online and issue dates distinct
Registry metadata may contain dates for online publication, issue, print and update. The required citation style and manifestation determine which year appears. Do not combine the online year with later volume and pages without a style basis. Keep all dates internally even if the formatted reference outputs one.
A common DOI does not prove textual identity. Articles with e-locators may have no conventional pages. Do not invent them from PDF viewer counts. Check the official landing page and Crossref record.
Seven-step version decision
- Preserve the file read and its landing page.
- Determine publication status.
- Match DOI and registry metadata.
- Search for issue assignment and corrections.
- Compare versions for the actual claim.
- Apply the citation style to the selected manifestation.
- Record version, date, location and reason.
The source evaluation hub connects status checks. Check a DOI covers metadata. The citing sources overview covers formatting.
Examples and corrections
Case A: An article appears online in March and in volume 12 with an article number in September. The student reads September's version and uses its metadata. Case B: An archived early file differs in table 2. The student rechecks the claim and records the switch. Case C: Only a preprint is available. It is labelled as a preprint, not as a publisher's online-first article.
- Do not add print pages to an unread online version.
- Do not call online-first a preprint.
- Do not convert an article number into pages.
- Keep corrections connected to the article.
- Review reference-manager updates.
- Update every use consistently.
A version log containing old reference, new reference, review date and affected claim prevents silent last-minute changes. Check quotations character by character after a version switch and update any page or section locator.
Where styles differ, consistency does not justify citing the wrong object. First establish version identity, then apply house style. If a supervisor requests print metadata while you used early content, explain the difference and preserve the evidence trail.
Three common version decisions
Case 1: only the online-first article exists. Cite that published online version with its DOI and the publication date supplied by the journal. Do not invent volume, issue or page numbers. In your working record, note that those bibliographic elements had not been assigned when you checked. A submitted paper need not pretend that later pagination was known at the time.
Case 2: online and issue versions have the same content. Use the more complete final bibliographic record once you have established that it identifies the same work. Compare DOI, title, author order and content. The DOI often remains unchanged while year, volume, issue and pages are added. Update the reference as one coherent record and confirm that any pinpoint citations still direct readers to the intended passage.
Case 3: the versions differ substantively. If tables, conclusions or supplementary material have changed, the choice is no longer a formatting preference. Look on the article page for a version notice, correction or separately registered object. Cite the manifestation you actually analysed and label its status. Where the later version fixes an error, base the scientific claim on corrected evidence; a historical analysis may still need to identify the earlier state separately. The decision log should explain that distinction rather than merging both states into an imaginary composite source.