Preprint Policy for Journals: Accept, Reject, or Embrace? Expert Guide to Journal Preprint Policies
Reviewed by the NeucitePress Editorial Board — PhD academics, peer-reviewed journal editors and medical communication specialists.
Last updated: July 2026 • Reviewed by the NeucitePress Editorial Board • Reading time: 9 minutes
A generation ago, posting a manuscript publicly before peer review could get it rejected outright at many journals. Today, preprints are a routine part of scholarly communication in most fields, and journals have had to write explicit policies to say where they stand. This guide covers what a preprint actually is, the major preprint servers by field, the range of policies journals take today, the history of the once-dominant “Ingelfinger rule” and why it has largely eroded, current norms across disciplines, and practical guidance for a journal drafting its own preprint policy.
What Is a Preprint?
A preprint is a complete draft of a research manuscript that is made publicly available on an open server before, or independent of, formal peer review at a journal. Preprints typically carry a permanent identifier (often a DOI) and a clear version label, and many are later revised and published in a peer-reviewed journal, at which point the preprint record is usually updated with a link to the published version. The defining feature is timing and status: a preprint has not yet been through a journal’s peer-review and editorial process, and it is explicitly labeled as such.
The major preprint servers are largely organized by discipline:
- arXiv is the longest-established preprint server, covering physics, mathematics, computer science, and several adjacent quantitative fields, and predates the modern preprint movement in the life sciences by roughly two decades.
- bioRxiv, operated by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, covers the basic life sciences — molecular biology, genetics, neuroscience, immunology, genomics, and related areas — and screens submissions for basic ethical and scientific soundness before posting, though it explicitly does not conduct peer review.
- medRxiv, a companion server to bioRxiv focused on clinical medicine, epidemiology, and public health, includes additional screening given the sensitivity of health-related research (for example, requiring clear reporting of clinical trial registration where applicable).
- SSRN hosts preprints and working papers across a broad range of social sciences, economics, law, and humanities-adjacent fields, and became a significant venue for early-release research during recent public health emergencies.
The Range of Journal Preprint Policies Today
Journal policies toward preprints fall along a spectrum rather than a simple accept/reject binary:
- Fully embracing: some journals not only accept prior preprint posting but actively integrate with preprint servers — for example, offering direct submission from a preprint server to the journal, or facilitating simultaneous posting to a preprint server alongside journal submission.
- Accept with disclosure: the most common current stance — a journal will consider a manuscript that was previously posted as a preprint, provided the author discloses this in the cover letter or submission system, and often requires the preprint to be updated or linked to the published version afterward.
- Silent or ambiguous policy: some journals, particularly smaller or more traditional titles, simply have not published an explicit preprint policy, which leaves authors to infer the norm from the journal’s field or ask the editorial office directly.
- Restricted by field or manuscript type: a smaller number of journals, especially in some clinical and surgical specialties, have explicitly declined to consider manuscripts previously posted as preprints, citing concerns about premature clinical claims reaching patients or the public before formal peer review.
- Embargo-based: some publications require or request that authors not promote the preprint publicly (for example, avoiding press coverage) while the manuscript is under review, without banning the preprint itself.
A useful reference for authors trying to check a specific journal’s stance is Wikipedia’s maintained list of academic publishers by preprint policy, alongside checking the journal’s own author guidelines directly, since individual titles within the same publisher can sometimes set their own rules.
The Ingelfinger Rule: History and Erosion
The “Ingelfinger rule” is named for Franz J. Ingelfinger, editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, who articulated it in a 1969 editorial. The original rule held that NEJM would not publish research findings that had already been made public elsewhere, on the reasoning that doing so would compromise the journal’s claim to original, first publication and undermine the embargo system that gives journalists and clinicians a controlled, simultaneous release of new findings. Though devised specifically for NEJM, the rule was widely adopted across biomedical and other journals and shaped submission norms for decades.
The rule has eroded substantially since the rise of preprint servers. As arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, and similar platforms became normal parts of scholarly workflow, journals that rigidly enforced a strict Ingelfinger-style rule found themselves excluding large amounts of mainstream, high-quality research simply because it had appeared as a preprint first. Major publishers, including Nature-family journals, have explicitly dropped Ingelfinger-style restrictions and now state that prior preprint posting does not count as prior publication. The rise of green open-access self-archiving policies, increased funder emphasis on rapid dissemination, and the practical reality that preprints are how many fields now first exchange results have all pushed the rule toward being the exception rather than the default it once was.
Current Norms Across Disciplines
The general trend across most scientific fields is toward acceptance: prior preprint posting is, for the majority of journals across most disciplines today, not treated as a barrier to submission or as “prior publication” in the way the original Ingelfinger rule assumed. That said, the details vary meaningfully by field and by journal:
- Physics, mathematics, and computer science have the longest-standing preprint culture via arXiv, and posting a preprint before or during journal submission is considered entirely normal and expected in most subfields.
- Biology and biomedicine have seen the fastest recent growth in preprint adoption via bioRxiv and medRxiv, with many major journals now explicitly welcoming preprints and even facilitating direct transfer of a preprint into journal submission.
- Clinical medicine is more cautious than basic biology, given concerns about unreviewed clinical findings reaching patients or influencing treatment decisions prematurely; medRxiv itself applies additional screening for this reason, and some clinical specialty journals remain more restrictive than the biomedical mainstream.
- Social sciences, economics, and law have an established preprint/working-paper culture through SSRN and field-specific repositories, generally well accepted by journals in these fields.
- Humanities have historically had a weaker preprint culture, in part because output there is often books or monographs rather than short-format journal articles, though this varies by subfield.
Even where the general trend is acceptance, authors should not assume: a specific target journal’s author guidelines, or a direct query to the editorial office, remains the only reliable way to confirm a policy before submitting.
Practical Guidance for Journals Drafting a Preprint Policy
Editorial teams that do not yet have a clear, published preprint policy should consider addressing the following:
- State the policy explicitly, in the author guidelines, rather than leaving it silent. Ambiguity creates unnecessary friction and support requests, and pushes authors to guess or assume based on other journals’ norms.
- Clarify whether prior preprint posting counts as “prior publication.” Most journals today explicitly state that it does not, but this needs to be stated rather than assumed.
- Require disclosure, not prohibition. Ask authors to note in their cover letter or submission form that a preprint exists and to provide its DOI or URL, so editors and reviewers have full context.
- Decide on post-acceptance linking. Many journals ask authors to update the preprint record with a link to the final published version once the article is accepted, which helps readers find the peer-reviewed version of record.
- Address media and promotion separately from posting itself. If the journal has concerns about premature public attention to unreviewed findings (a common concern in clinical fields), address that specifically as a media-embargo question rather than banning preprints outright.
- Consider field-appropriate caution for clinical or public-health content. A blanket policy copied from a physics or computer science journal may not fit a clinical specialty journal’s legitimate concerns about unreviewed treatment claims reaching patients.
- Review and update the policy periodically. Preprint norms have moved quickly over the past decade; a policy written five years ago may no longer reflect the journal’s actual practice or its authors’ expectations.
For most journals today, the practical question has shifted from “should we allow preprints at all” to “how do we clearly document the policy we already, in practice, follow.” A clear, published policy reduces friction for authors and reviewers alike, and reflects where the field has largely already moved.
