PostprintEdit

Postprint is a term in scholarly publishing that refers to a specific version of a research article, produced after the peer-review process but before the publisher performs its formatting, layout, and copyediting. In practice, the postprint is the author’s accepted manuscript that incorporates changes from peer review and the authors’ revisions, but it is not the publisher’s final, typeset version. This distinction matters for authors, libraries, funders, and anyone concerned with how research is accessed and reused. The postprint is often deposited in a repository as part of a broader strategy known as open access or green OA to expand the reach of scientific findings while preserving the incentives and investments that drive high-quality publishing. The concept sits between the preprint (the manuscript posted before or during peer review) and the version of record (the publisher’s final, citable article) preprint version of record.

The postprint and its relatives have become central to debates about how best to fund, curate, and disseminate knowledge. Proponents argue that postprints enable broad access to research results without abandoning the traditional peer-review system or the substantial investment publishers make in quality control. Critics, often focusing on cost, licensing, and sustainability, worry about whether broad postprint access undercuts the market for publisher-services or whether embargoes simply shift the timing of access rather than expand it. The practical reality is a mix of policy adjustments, rights negotiations, and institutional practices designed to balance authors’ rights, publishers’ business models, and public access to knowledge. See open access and green OA for related ideas about how postprints fit into larger access strategies.

Definition and distinctions

Postprint: The version after peer review and revision, but before publisher typesetting and final layout. It is sometimes referred to as the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) or the accepted manuscript.
Preprint: The version posted before peer review, used for early feedback and rapid dissemination of ideas. See preprint.
Version of record (VOR): The publisher’s final, citable article with the typeset text, figures, and formatting as it appears in the journal. See version of record.
Publisher’s PDF: The final, formatted file produced by the publisher, distinct from the postprint. See publisher.

In practice, many journals allow deposit of the postprint in an institutional or subject repository after an embargo period set by the publisher. The exact rights and timing depend on the publisher’s policy, which can often be found in resources such as SHERPA/RoMEO or the publisher’s own terms. The balance between deposit rights and embargo lengths varies across disciplines and funders.

Rights, licensing, and embargoes

The postprint sits at the intersection of author rights and publisher protections. Authors frequently transfer copyright or grant exclusive publishing rights to journals as a condition of publication, but many publishers permit postprint deposits under specific conditions. These conditions often include:

Embargo period: A period after publication during which the postprint cannot be made publicly available. Embargo lengths commonly range from several months to a year or more, depending on the journal and field.
License type: Some publishers require a restrictive license for postprints, while others allow more permissive reuse through licenses commonly associated with open access, such as the Creative Commons family. Licensing choices influence how the postprint can be reused by others.
Hosting location: Postprints are typically deposited in an institutional repository or a subject repository. The repository serves as a stable, long-term home for the manuscript and can provide discoverability beyond the publisher’s site.

Rights retention strategies are a practical tool for authors who want to maximize postprint reuse while preserving publisher rights. These strategies may involve securing a non-exclusive license to publish or choosing publishers that explicitly permit postprint deposits. For a sense of how policies are codified, see Creative Commons licenses and copyright considerations, and note how a funder’s requirements can shape deposit practices.

The role in open access and policy

Postprints are a core mechanism in the broader open access ecosystem. They enable researchers, students, and independent scholars to access peer-reviewed research without paying wall access, provided embargoes are respected. This aligns with goals of increasing discovery and accelerating the application of findings in industry, medicine, and public policy, while still enabling publishers to recover costs through subscriptions, memberships, or hybrid OA arrangements.

Key policy contexts include:

Green OA mandates: Funders or institutions may require that research articles be deposited in a repository, with or without an embargo. The postprint is typically the version deposited, since it is closer to the final content than a preprint and can be made openly accessible once embargoes lapse.
NIH and other funders: Public funders often encourage or require public accessibility of funded research. In many cases, the postprint is a practical vehicle for meeting those goals without forcing a publisher’s version to be immediately accessible. See NIH Public Access Policy.
Publisher business models: The postprint approach is compatible with various business models, including traditional subscriptions, read-and-publish deals, and some forms of OA, as long as rights and embargoes are respected. This is a practical middle path that preserves the incentives for peer review and editorial work while broadening access.

From a policy vantage point, the postprint approach is often defended as a measured way to bridge private investment in scholarly publishing with public access objectives. It seeks to reduce the cost to libraries and taxpayers while maintaining the high standards of peer review and the expertise of editors and reviewers.

Economic and policy debates

Sustainability of journals: Critics argue that aggressive postprint access could undermine the financial model of journals, reducing underwriting for high-quality editorial work, member services, and infrastructure. Advocates argue that postprints can coexist with strong journals, particularly when embargoes and licenses are thoughtfully designed to preserve incentives for quality control.
Access versus control: Some critics contend that immediate OA devalues the publisher’s control over the final, citable version. Supporters counter that the postprint preserves the integrity of the peer-reviewed content and that the version of record remains available through the publisher for citation and attribution.
Speed of dissemination: Proponents of postprints highlight faster dissemination once the manuscript is accepted, as authors can share results with colleagues earlier than the publisher’s schedule would allow. Opponents worry about how embargo policies might delay access and whether deposit requirements introduce administrative burdens.
The role of government and taxpayers: A common argument is that public funding should yield broad access to results. The postprint strategy is presented as a way to achieve public access without mandating a collapse of the traditional market for scholarly publishing, which many institutions view as a stable provider of peer review and editorial services.

From a practical, market-minded perspective, the postprint approach emphasizes leveraging competition and choice in the publishing ecosystem. It encourages authors to protect rights where possible, institutions to develop repositories that facilitate discoverability, and funders to set reasonable expectations that do not impose prohibitive mandates on publishers or researchers.

Controversies and debates (from a pragmatic, rights-respecting perspective)

Quality and access: A common concern is that expanding postprint access could erode the perceived value of the publisher’s role. In reality, the postprint preserves the peer-reviewed content, while the publisher’s process remains responsible for critique, editing, and layout in the version of record. The argument rests on whether access expands the scientific community’s capacity to use and build on results, which many see as a public good.
Licensing choices: Critics sometimes push for immediate, liberal licenses (e.g., CC BY) for all postprints. In practice, licensing is shaped by publisher policies and funder requirements. A balanced stance recognizes the importance of clear reuse rights for researchers and educators while acknowledging that licensing terms are often negotiated on a case-by-case basis.
“Woke” critiques and policy realism: Some criticisms assert that open access undermines the prestige or reliability of scholarly work. A grounded view is that the postprint is still derived from peer-reviewed research and represents the content that formed the scholarly consensus at the time of acceptance. The version of record remains the authoritative, citable article, and postprints function as a practical access layer. Critics who dismiss collaboration, peer review, or editorial standards as mere gatekeeping miss the point that postprints do not replace these core processes; they complement them by broadening access within a rights framework.

Practical guidance for authors and institutions

Check the policy: Before submitting, review the publisher’s policy on postprint deposits, embargoes, and licensing. Use resources such as SHERPA/RoMEO to understand what is allowed for your journal and field.
Retain rights where possible: Where allowed, seek non-exclusive licenses to publish or retain sufficient rights to deposit a postprint after the embargo period.
Deposit responsibly: Upload the postprint to an institutional or subject repository after the allowed embargo, and clearly indicate the licensing terms and the version (e.g., “Author Accepted Manuscript” or “postprint”).
Link to the version of record: When sharing, provide a link to the publisher’s version of record for authoritative citation, while making the postprint openly accessible as permitted.
Be mindful of licensing for reuse: If possible, choose or negotiate licenses that facilitate reuse in teaching, research, and public engagement, such as more permissive Creative Commons licenses, recognizing publisher constraints.
Support a balanced ecosystem: Institutions can negotiate agreements that combine access to journals with the ability to deposit postprints, aiming to sustain high-quality editorial work while expanding access.