Extended definition
The author accepted manuscript (AAM), also called the postprint, is the version of a manuscript after peer review and acceptance but before the publisher’s typesetting and final editing. It already incorporates the changes required by reviewers, so its scientific content is equivalent to the published article, but it lacks the journal’s pagination, typography, and logo. The AAM occupies the middle step of a three-version sequence: the preprint (before review), the AAM or postprint (after acceptance), and the version of record (VoR), the publisher’s final, official PDF. The distinction matters because each version carries a different rights regime: most subscription publishers forbid redistributing the VoR but allow depositing the AAM in a repository, sometimes after an embargo period. Björk and colleagues (2014) described the anatomy of green open access and showed that the AAM is precisely the typical object of self-archiving.
When it applies
The AAM applies as the practical instrument of the green route to open access. It applies when an author publishes in a closed or hybrid journal but wants or needs to make the work open without paying an APC: the author deposits the AAM in an institutional or subject repository, respecting the publisher’s policy. It applies to compliance with funder mandates and Plan S, which accept depositing the AAM under an adequate license as a compliant route. Laakso (2014) documented that the large majority of articles could be self-archived as an AAM, revealing an underused green potential. It also applies to preservation and priority: the AAM in a repository secures a stable, citable copy of the accepted content, regardless of any paywall.
When it does not apply
The AAM does not replace the version of record for formal citation: when a VoR exists, it is the VoR that is cited, and the AAM serves access, not the canonical reference. It does not apply while ignoring the embargo: many publishers release the deposit only after 6 to 24 months, and archiving before the deadline violates the contract. It does not apply to the VoR itself: depositing the publisher’s final PDF in a repository without permission is usually a rights infringement, a common error described by Harnad and colleagues (2008) in their treatment of the green and gold routes. And it does not apply as a synonym for preprint: the preprint precedes review and carries no acceptance, whereas the AAM is post-review; conflating the two erases the difference in validation.
Applications by field
- Physics, mathematics, and computing: a strong self-archiving culture; the AAM, and even the preprint, circulates on arXiv as a disciplinary norm.
- Biomedicine: depositing the AAM in PubMed Central is a requirement of funders such as the NIH, often with an embargo.
- Social sciences and humanities: more irregular use; institutional repositories and policy checks via Sherpa Romeo guide the deposit.
- Engineering: an AAM in an institutional repository coexists with the VoR behind a paywall in society journals.
Common pitfalls
The first pitfall is confusing the AAM with the version of record and depositing the publisher’s PDF without permission, which infringes copyright. The second is confusing the AAM with a preprint and treating as post-review a text that has not yet been reviewed. The third is ignoring the embargo and opening access before the contractual deadline. The fourth is not checking the publisher’s policy: tools such as Sherpa Romeo report what, when, and where one may archive, and skipping that check leads to irregular deposits. The fifth is keeping the AAM only on an academic social network (ResearchGate, Academia.edu) while believing it satisfies the mandate: these platforms are not preservation repositories and often host the wrong version, with no guarantee of permanence.