We investigated author use of preprints including compliance with journal preprint policy, timing of posting, likelihood of preprint review impacting manuscript content, and consistency in licensing. Submissions to one biomedical journal were reviewed over 2.5 years. About 24% of authors were non-compliant with the journal's preprint policy. Only three journal articles out of 76 posted as preprints received publicly available comments on the preprints. Additionally, most preprints and articles were submitted so closely together temporally (<10 days apart) that even if comments had been posted online in response to the preprint, they were unlikely to have led to changes in manuscript content submitted to the journal. iThenticate plagiarism detection software scored preprints and articles 83% similar (median), providing additional evidence that preprint posting does not notably affect manuscript content. Lastly, preprint versus journal publication licence types were compared. Most authors chose different licence types for the preprint and subsequent journal article, setting up an inherent conflict about reuse of very similar work and incompatible dual licensing of essentially a single product. These insights into author use of preprints and compliance with policy furthers understanding of author utilization of preprints, informs future author education efforts, and supports attempts to harmonize licensing.

中文翻译：

---

作者预印行为和不遵守期刊预印政策：一份生物医学期刊的经验

我们调查了作者对预印本的使用，包括遵守期刊预印本政策、发布时间、预印本审查影响手稿内容的可能性以及许可的一致性。提交给一份生物医学期刊的稿件经过了 2.5 年的审核。大约 24% 的作者不遵守该期刊的预印本政策。在作为预印本发表的 76 篇期刊文章中，只有 3 篇收到了对预印本的公开评论。此外，大多数预印本和文章的提交时间非常接近（相隔 <10 天），即使针对预印本发表了评论，它们也不太可能导致提交给期刊的手稿内容发生变化。iThenticate 抄袭检测软件对预印本和文章的评分为 83%（中位数），提供额外的证据证明预印本发布不会显着影响手稿内容。最后，预印本与期刊出版许可证类型进行了比较。大多数作者为预印本和随后的期刊文章选择了不同的许可类型，这在重复使用非常相似的工作和本质上单一产品的不兼容双重许可方面存在内在冲突。这些对作者使用预印本和遵守政策的见解进一步了解作者对预印本的使用，为未来的作者教育工作提供信息，并支持协调许可的尝试。