bioRxiv versioning works by assigning every preprint a version number starting at v1 on first posting; authors can submit revisions at any time before journal acceptance, each becoming v2, v3 and so on under the same DOI, with every prior version preserved and independently citable via the “Info/History” tab. Unlike a journal correction process, there is no editor gatekeeping a revision, and nothing is ever deleted from the record.
A bioRxiv version is a distinct, permanently archived snapshot of a preprint’s PDF, HTML and XML files, numbered sequentially (v1, v2, v3…) and linked to one persistent DOI that never changes across revisions. Understanding this versioning system — what triggers a new version, what stays fixed, and how to cite a specific one — matters for authors tracking revision history and readers who need to know exactly which version of a claim they are reading.
- What happens when a preprint first posts as v1?
- How do authors submit a v2 or later revision?
- Does the DOI change between versions, and how do you cite one?
- What does NOT require a new version?
- What happens if an author withdraws a preprint?
- Common questions about bioRxiv versioning
- Implications for research administrators and institutions
What happens when a preprint first posts as v1?
When a manuscript clears bioRxiv’s screening process — typically within 72 hours of submission, according to bioRxiv’s own FAQ — it is posted as version 1 (v1). The PDF appears first; full-text HTML and XML conversion follows 24–48 hours later.
Each version, from v1 onward, is independently available in PDF, HTML and XML — the XML format exists for text-mining and machine-readable indexing, a detail most competing explainers omit. Once v1 is live, it is immediately assigned a DOI (via Crossref) and indexed by Google Scholar, Europe PubMed Central and the Preprint Citation Index connected to Web of Science: v1 is citable and part of the permanent scientific record from the moment it posts, not a provisional draft.
How do authors submit a v2 or later revision?
Authors submit revisions through the “Submit a Revision” option in their bioRxiv Author Area, locating their existing submission ID and selecting “Submit a revised manuscript.” bioRxiv’s policy states a manuscript “can be revised at any time until it is published in a journal” — there is no fixed revision window and no limit on the number of versions.
The revision mechanism is intended for substantive changes: new datasets, re-analyses, expanded discussion, or additional supplemental information. A revision is posted under the same DOI, and — critically — the prior version is not overwritten. It remains permanently accessible through the article’s Info/History tab, so a reader can always compare what changed between v1 and v2, or v2 and v3.
One detail rarely covered elsewhere: if a preprint was originally submitted indirectly via a journal’s own pipeline (journal-to-bioRxiv, or “J2B”), the corresponding author must first register a bioRxiv account using the same email address used at journal submission before they can access the Author Area to file a revision.
Does the DOI change between versions, and how do you cite one?
The DOI stays fixed across every version of a bioRxiv preprint. v1, v2 and v3 of the same manuscript all resolve through one DOI — a reader following an older citation lands on whatever version is current, with the option to step back through history.
To cite a specific version rather than “whatever is current,” bioRxiv appends a version-specific URL to the DOI. Its FAQ gives this exact pattern:
| Element | Format | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Standard DOI citation | doi: 10.1101/[identifier] | doi: 10.1101/2019.12.11.123456 |
| Version-specific citation | DOI + version-specific URL | doi: 10.1101/2019.12.11.123456 version 2, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2019.12.11.123456v2 |
This matters for reference managers such as EndNote: the DOI field should carry the persistent identifier, while the version number belongs in the URL or a note field if the citing author wants to pin the exact revision read, rather than whichever version happens to be live later.
One exception: if a revision alters the manuscript so substantially that bioRxiv considers it a genuinely different article, the author must submit it as a new manuscript — which receives its own, separate DOI rather than becoming v2 of the original.
What does NOT require a new version?
Three specific cases are worth flagging because they trip up first-time bioRxiv authors and are absent from most general explainers:
- Metadata typos. If the title, author names, affiliations or abstract in the submission form contain an error but the PDF is correct, bioRxiv auto-replaces the site metadata with text extracted from the PDF within roughly 48 hours — authors are told not to submit a full revision solely to fix this.
- Author name changes. bioRxiv permits a “silent” first/last name update — for example after a legal name change — by direct email request, without a new version or correction notice. This excludes author removal or reordering, which need a standard revision.
- Supplemental-file-only changes. If only supplemental files change, bioRxiv still requires them submitted together with the article file as part of a new version; a supplemental-only upload cannot be filed alone.
What happens if an author withdraws a preprint?
bioRxiv preprints cannot be deleted once posted, because each version carries a DOI and is indexed externally by Google Scholar and Crossref, creating a permanent footprint independent of bioRxiv’s own servers. If authors no longer stand behind their findings, the remedy is a formal withdrawal, not removal.
To withdraw, the corresponding author uses “Submit a Withdrawal Statement” inside the same Author Area used for revisions. A withdrawal adds a “Withdrawn” watermark to the PDF of every version ever posted and posts an explanatory statement on the article page — but the original manuscript remains viewable via the Info/History tab. It is a labelled correction, not an erasure. bioRxiv notes outright removal happens only in “extremely rare cases,” for legal or safety reasons.
Once a preprint is published in a peer-reviewed journal, no further author action is usually needed: bioRxiv automatically adds a link to the published version within approximately two weeks, and all preprint versions — v1 through the final revision — remain live alongside it.
Common questions about bioRxiv versioning
Can I upload a new version or replace a bioRxiv preprint?
Authors cannot replace or delete a posted version, but they can add a new one. Using “Submit a Revision” in the Author Area at any point before journal acceptance creates the next sequential version (v2, v3…) while every earlier version stays permanently visible in the Info/History tab.
Why does bioRxiv take so long to post a new version?
Both initial posting and revisions go through the same screening step, which usually completes within 72 hours. Delays typically occur over weekends or holidays, or when a submission needs extra scrutiny for scope, plagiarism or safety-related content before the new version is approved.
Does bioRxiv count as published once it has multiple versions?
No. Additional versions do not confer peer-reviewed status. bioRxiv is explicit that it “is not a journal” and has no Impact Factor; every version, however many revisions deep, carries the standard disclaimer that the content has not been certified by peer review.
Are previous bioRxiv versions still readable after a revision posts?
Yes. Every prior version remains permanently accessible through the Info/History tab on the preprint’s landing page after a new version is submitted, so readers can compare v1 against later revisions rather than losing access to earlier text.
Implications for research administrators and institutions
For institutions tracking preprint outputs in repository or CRIS systems, the persistent-DOI-plus-version model means a single DOI can legitimately correspond to several distinct texts over time. Metadata harvesting workflows that snapshot “the” abstract or author list at ingestion risk becoming stale if a later version changes those fields — administrators should record which version number was harvested, not just the DOI.
For funders, the NIH has stated it “encourages investigators to use interim research products, such as preprints, to speed the dissemination and enhance the rigor of their work,” and preprints of NIH-funded studies are indexed in PubMed regardless of version count. Citing the version actually reviewed — using the version-specific URL pattern above — gives reviewers an unambiguous audit trail rather than a moving target.
As preprint volume grows, the version history itself is becoming part of the evidentiary record: it documents how a finding evolved in response to community comment before formal peer review.