Springer now demand that your pre-acceptance version of a paper on the arXiv comes with a disclaimer:

“This preprint has not undergone peer review (when applicable) or any post-submission improvements or corrections. The Version of Record of this article is published in [insert journal title], and is available online at https://doi.org/[insert DOI]”."

and forbids you from putting the version accepted on the arXiv under an OA license:

"The rights granted to the Author with respect to the Accepted Manuscript are subject to the conditions that (i) the Accepted Manuscript is not enhanced or substantially reformatted by the Author or any third party, and (ii) the Author includes on the Accepted Manuscript an acknowledgement in the following form, together with a link to the published version on the publisher’s website: “This version of the article has been accepted for publication, after peer review (when applicable) but is not the Version of Record and does not reflect post-acceptance improvements, or any corrections. The Version of Record is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/[insert DOI]. Use of this Accepted Version is subject to the publisher’s Accepted Manuscript terms of use https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/policies/accepted-manuscript-terms”. Under no circumstances may an Accepted Manuscript be shared or distributed under a Creative Commons or other form of open access licence."

So Springer is saying it has control over how people use papers on the arXiv: "Use of this Accepted Version is subject to the publisher’s Accepted Manuscript terms of use."

I knew none of this when I submitted my paper, nor when I uploaded my updated paper to the arXiv.

The only thing you can do is tick a box that says "you are agreeing to the content in this publishing agreement, and are legally bound to it."

or email them for "help".

Springer's 'terms of use' for the 'accepted manuscript' version include forbidding sharing the file—say from the arXiv—with others (paragraph 5 is essentially fair use provisions and quoting in an academic context), and even the *authors* are forbidden from making any changes whatsoever to the accepted manuscript at any later date.

Pfft.

@highergeometer Well, I agree with the second term. Once a manuscript is accepted, it becomes an immutable, historical document. If it contains mistakes, they may be corrected in subsequent correspondence, but the record must stand as provenance of the historical development of the subject area.

@khleedril What if there was a critical mathematical typo that was easily fixed by the authors and missed by the reviewers? I'm not talking about rewriting the paper, just saving some poor grad students in the future wasting an hour, a day, a month on bashing their head against an easily missed trivial mistake that otherwise changes the meaning? Most people will be accessing the arXiv version of this, is my guess, not the paywalled version. I declined for my library to pay Springer an APC for what is already free on the internet.

@khleedril And in fact I strenuously (but respectfully) disagree that for my field an accepted manuscript is an immutable historical document. In fact the document *is* on the arXiv for people to see, but it is replaced by a subsequent version with the mathematical typos corrected (and, no, the typos were really not harmful to the proofs etc), and with value like working hyperlinks to arXiv versions of papers in the bibliography, a fixed-up reference that was broken by accidentally using the wrong BiBTeX entry and the like. No one is deprived of this, but no one should be reading that version anyway. I proof-read the (rather lengthy) paper rather closely after acceptance, and found all kinds of silly typos. The publisher added no value whatsoever in the process, the referee didn't spot these typos, nor did the outsourced production team fix the mistakes. I don't owe them for that.

@highergeometer In my opinion the choice comes down to you: if you want a dynamic digital paper keep it on the arXiv or submit to a more relaxed journal; if you want a refereed 'paper' paper (i.e. the old-fashioned sort) then submit to Springer, or whoever. In the past it wasn't possible to make changes once a journal had been printed and put on bookshelves, and that is a kind of historical curation which I think is important to preserve.

I totally understand why opinions would vary on this.

@khleedril I don't want a dynamic paper, just want my final version free of stupid typos. And I don't think people should be made to pay the publisher to get that version, and anyone who can't has to struggle with interpreting incorrect equations.

@highergeometer @khleedril I'm not sure if you're in Europe or not, but if you are, then there is a solution for future papers: https://www.ore.eu/

Zero cost to authors or libraries, a sensible sounding peer review process, and the possibility to make corrections later.