CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: biorxiv or medrxiv

  • bioRxiv or medRxiv? Choosing the Right Server for Clinical vs Basic Research

    bioRxiv or medRxiv? Choose bioRxiv for basic, non-clinical life-sciences research such as genetics, microbiology or neuroscience, and medRxiv for clinical, epidemiological or public-health research that could influence patient care. The two preprint servers do not overlap: posting the same manuscript to both is prohibited and can result in withdrawal.

    A preprint server is an open-access repository where researchers post a scientific manuscript publicly before it has completed formal peer review. bioRxiv and medRxiv are the two sibling servers operated by openRxiv for the life and health sciences respectively, and the correct choice between them depends on subject scope, not on which sounds more prestigious.

    On this page:

    What is the difference between bioRxiv and medRxiv?

    bioRxiv launched in 2013 at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) as a preprint server for basic biology; medRxiv followed in 2019 as a dedicated server for clinical and health-sciences manuscripts. In March 2025, CSHL transferred governance of both platforms to openRxiv, a newly formed independent nonprofit, marking the most significant structural change since bioRxiv’s founding.

    Neither server is a journal. medRxiv is not a journal — it is a repository, and nothing posted there has been peer reviewed or certified. Both platforms carry explicit caution notices stating that preprints should not guide clinical practice, inform health-related behaviour, or be reported as established findings.

    The practical distinction authors need is scope, not scale: bioRxiv covers fundamental biological research with new data, while medRxiv is reserved for work that could plausibly influence a clinical decision, a public-health response, or patient behaviour.

    Where should clinical trials and health research go?

    Any manuscript reporting a clinical trial, an epidemiological study, or research with direct implications for diagnosis, treatment or public-health policy belongs on medRxiv. bioRxiv’s own submission guidance is explicit that new clinical trial reports and most epidemiology submissions must now go to medRxiv rather than bioRxiv.

    medRxiv applies stricter screening than bioRxiv precisely because misinterpreted clinical claims carry public-harm risk. One detail authors frequently miss: medRxiv does not accept case reports or case series, so single-patient or small-series clinical write-ups need a different outlet even when the subject matter is unambiguously medical.

    • Randomised controlled trials and other interventional studies
    • Epidemiological and public-health surveillance research
    • Studies involving patient-level clinical or health-behaviour data
    • Infectious disease, oncology, cardiovascular medicine and psychiatry manuscripts

    Where should microbiology, neuroscience and basic biology go?

    bioRxiv is the correct venue when the research advances fundamental biological understanding without a direct clinical application. Its subject categories include microbiology, neuroscience, genetics, immunology, cell biology and bioinformatics, among others, and submissions are screened by volunteer bioRxiv Affiliates chiefly for scope, plagiarism and public-harm potential.

    A microbiology paper characterising a novel bacteriophage, or a neuroscience paper mapping neural circuitry in a model organism, sits comfortably on bioRxiv provided it does not extend into patient data or treatment recommendations. The moment a microbiology study becomes an infectious-disease outbreak analysis, or a neuroscience study becomes a neurology or psychiatry treatment study, the correct server changes to medRxiv.

    How do you decide when a study sits on the border?

    Most submission confusion happens in a handful of predictable grey zones where a basic-science category on bioRxiv has a clinical counterpart on medRxiv. openRxiv’s own subject-category lists make the pairing explicit, and mapping them side by side is the fastest way to resolve a borderline decision.

    bioRxiv category (basic science) medRxiv category (clinical counterpart) Decision rule
    Genetics / Genomics Genetic and Genomic Medicine Patient-directed diagnosis or therapy → medRxiv
    Neuroscience Neurology / Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology Patient treatment or behaviour outcomes → medRxiv
    Microbiology Infectious Diseases Outbreak, surveillance or patient-cohort data → medRxiv
    Pharmacology and Toxicology Pharmacology and Therapeutics Human dosing, trial or therapeutic outcome data → medRxiv

    As a working test: if the manuscript’s conclusion could reasonably change what a clinician does at the bedside, or what a public-health body recommends, it belongs on medRxiv regardless of how “basic” the underlying technique feels. If it reports mechanism, model-organism data or method development with no direct patient or population-health claim, bioRxiv is the right home.

    Under the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ recommendations, posting to a recognised preprint server does not count as prior or duplicate publication and does not preclude subsequent journal submission — but authors should still confirm the target journal’s own preprint policy before posting either version.

    Questions authors ask

    Is bioRxiv reputable?

    Yes. bioRxiv is a well-established, widely used life-sciences preprint server operated by openRxiv, screened by volunteer affiliates for plagiarism, scope and biosafety concerns. It is not peer reviewed, but it is recognised across academic biology as a legitimate venue for early-stage research dissemination.

    Is medRxiv trustworthy?

    medRxiv applies a stricter, additional screening layer beyond bioRxiv’s because of the public-harm risk in clinical and health content. Every posted manuscript carries a prominent caution notice stating it has not been certified by peer review and should not guide clinical practice, making its scope and limitations transparent to readers.

    What is the difference between bioRxiv and medRxiv?

    bioRxiv covers basic, non-clinical life sciences; medRxiv is reserved for clinical, epidemiological and health-sciences research with potential patient or public-health impact. Screening intensity, disclaimer wording and accepted article types differ accordingly, and a single manuscript cannot be posted to both servers simultaneously.

    What are the alternatives to bioRxiv?

    Depending on field, authors also use arXiv for quantitative and computational biology work, Research Square or journal-integrated “In Review” services, and discipline-specific repositories such as ChemRxiv. None of these substitute for medRxiv when a manuscript is clinically actionable.

    What this means for authors and institutions

    For individual authors, the server choice is a compliance decision, not a branding one: submitting a clinical manuscript to the wrong server risks a request to withdraw and resubmit, delaying the timestamp priority a preprint is meant to secure. Research administrators tracking institutional preprint activity — an increasingly routine part of research administration workflows — should build the bioRxiv/medRxiv scope test into pre-submission checklists rather than leaving it to individual author judgement.

    For institutions and publishers, the March 2025 move to independent openRxiv governance is worth tracking: it signals that preprint infrastructure for biology and medicine is now managed as permanent scholarly-communication infrastructure rather than a single laboratory’s side project, with implications for long-term archival stability and policy planning. Definitions of related terms, including preprint, postprint and version of record, are maintained in the CASRAI Research Administration Dictionary.

    The practical rule holds regardless of field: match the manuscript’s real-world consequence, not its disciplinary label, to the server’s scope, and treat the bioRxiv/medRxiv boundary as a public-harm question rather than a prestige one.

  • Scientific Preprints: What the 2026 Survey Shows

    Scientific preprints are now a routine part of research life, but new 2026 survey evidence shows researchers remain deeply divided on whether posting one helps or hurts a career. A scientific preprint is a complete draft of a research manuscript shared publicly before formal peer review, most commonly via a discipline-specific server such as bioRxiv, medRxiv, arXiv or Preprints.org. Across three separate studies published in 2025-2026, most researchers say preprints speed up dissemination and widen visibility, yet a majority still believe evaluators reward peer-reviewed journal articles over preprints when it comes to hiring, promotion and funding decisions.

    What do the 2026 preprint surveys actually show?

    The most detailed new evidence comes from a survey of nearly 1,800 biomedical researchers in the United States and Canada, fielded in early 2025 and posted to bioRxiv in March 2026 under the title “Faster science, penalties in evaluation, and concerns on quality and impact: Researchers’ use and perceptions of preprints”. Its findings, also reported by Science/AAAS, describe engagement driven mainly by speed rather than any deeper commitment to open science.

    Two smaller but complementary studies add discipline and geography to the picture: a 2026 cross-sectional survey of 103 medical faculty at Marmara University in Türkiye, published in JMIRx Med, and a 2025 nationwide survey of 170 early-career researchers in India, run by the Indian National Young Academy of Science with the International Science Council and reported by Research Matters. Together they show that global attitudes to preprints are not converging; they are fragmenting by discipline, career stage and national research-assessment culture.

    How many researchers read, cite and post preprints?

    In the US/Canada biomedical survey, two-thirds of respondents had read at least one preprint in the previous two years, roughly half had submitted one themselves, and only about one-third had cited one in their own published work. Nearly half of respondents said they worried preprints could spread shoddy research or misinformation before it has been checked.

    Survey Population and date Sample size Headline finding
    Researchers’ Use and Perceptions of Preprints (bioRxiv, 2026) US and Canadian biomedical researchers, fielded early 2025 ~1,800 Two-thirds had read a preprint in two years; most did not believe posting one improved career prospects
    Awareness, Experiences and Attitudes Toward Preprints Among Medical Academics (JMIRx Med, 2026) Medical faculty, Marmara University, Türkiye 103 Awareness was inconsistent and clinical adoption remained cautious
    INYAS/International Science Council nationwide survey (2025) Early-career researchers, India 170 52.3% cited fear of being “scooped” as the top barrier to posting a preprint

    The gap between reading, citing and posting matters. Researchers evidently trust preprints enough to consult them for current findings, but a much smaller group is willing to stake a citation, and fewer still are willing to post their own unreviewed work under their name.

    Do preprints help or hurt career advancement?

    The bioRxiv survey is unambiguous on this point: researchers on average do not believe publishing preprints enhances their career advancement. More than 60% of respondents who sit on funding, hiring or tenure committees said they give more credit to peer-reviewed papers than to preprints, and fewer than 12% said they credit both equally. Only around 16% strongly agreed that preprints reduce the weight evaluators place on articles in subscription, peer-reviewed journals.

    Yet the same respondents were not dismissive of preprints as a practice. Two-thirds of hiring-committee members said they viewed preprints favourably as evidence of productivity and momentum, even while acknowledging that a preprint carries less formal weight than a peer-reviewed publication. Researchers also credited preprints with two concrete, non-evaluative benefits: they spread findings faster than peer-reviewed journals do, and they help authors find collaborators. Credibility judgements, meanwhile, still lean heavily on author reputation rather than any formal quality signal attached to the preprint itself.

    • Career-advancement belief: low, on average, across all three 2025-2026 surveys.
    • Speed-to-dissemination benefit: consistently rated the strongest advantage.
    • Credibility heuristic: author and institutional reputation, not peer review status.
    • Formal recognition in tenure and promotion frameworks: still rare or absent.

    Why does adoption vary so much by country and discipline?

    Adoption is shaped less by technology access than by how national research-assessment systems treat unreviewed work. In India, the top-cited barrier to posting a preprint was fear of being “scooped” (52.3% of respondents in the INYAS/International Science Council survey), closely followed by a lack of institutional recognition. A genuine, if narrow, policy shift is under way there: India’s University Grants Commission guidelines now permit preprints to be considered as part of doctoral-degree assessment, a concrete recognition step most other jurisdictions have not yet matched.

    In Türkiye, the JMIRx Med survey of clinical academics found inconsistent awareness of what a preprint even is, alongside caution rooted in traditional publishing norms in medicine. That pattern echoes wider findings from Digital Science’s 2025 State of Open Data report, the longest-running annual survey of open-research behaviour, which found that two-thirds of over 43,000 researcher respondents still feel they receive insufficient credit for open practices generally — a “credit gap” that maps directly onto preprint hesitancy.

    Answer-first: common preprint questions

    What is a scientific preprint?

    A scientific preprint is a complete manuscript version shared publicly, typically via a dedicated server, before it has completed formal peer review or journal publication. It lets researchers establish priority and gather early feedback while the manuscript is still moving through review at a journal.

    Are preprints credible?

    Preprints carry no guarantee of quality because they bypass formal peer review, but many undergo basic screening by the hosting server. Survey evidence shows readers judge credibility mainly by author reputation and institutional affiliation rather than any formal quality mark on the preprint itself.

    Can preprints be cited in academic work?

    Yes. Major style guides, including APA, provide explicit reference formats for preprints, and ICMJE recommendations permit citing them provided the version is clearly identified as unreviewed. Reviewers should still prefer the peer-reviewed version once one exists.

    Do preprints help or hurt a researcher’s career?

    2026 survey data show a split effect: preprints speed up dissemination and help researchers find collaborators, but most respondents do not believe posting one improves career advancement, and over 60% of evaluators still credit peer-reviewed papers more heavily in hiring and tenure decisions.

    What this means for institutions and publishers

    The consistent finding across all three 2025-2026 surveys is a mismatch between researcher behaviour and institutional recognition. Researchers are reading, and increasingly posting, preprints for pragmatic reasons — speed, visibility, collaboration — while formal evaluation frameworks lag behind. India’s UGC decision to count preprints toward doctoral assessment is a rare example of policy catching up with practice; most institutions have not made an equivalent move.

    For research administrators and publishers, the practical implication is that preprint policy cannot be treated as a peer-review question alone. It touches authorship and contribution standards, since credit for early-shared work still needs to be attributed accurately, and it belongs firmly within research administration policy on how non-traditional outputs are counted in assessment. Clear institutional guidance — not just server-level screening — is what closes the credit gap these surveys describe.

    Where preprint culture goes next

    None of the 2025-2026 evidence suggests preprint use will slow. Reading and posting rates are already high across biomedical fields, and funders are steadily normalising rapid, open sharing of results. What has not caught up is formal recognition: until hiring, promotion and funding committees credit preprints on comparable terms to peer-reviewed work, the gap between researcher enthusiasm and institutional reward will persist. The 2026 surveys make that gap measurable for the first time at this scale — the next test is whether assessment frameworks respond.

  • Research Square vs bioRxiv: Ownership & Fees

    Research Square vs bioRxiv is, at its core, a nonprofit-versus-commercial question: Research Square is a preprint platform owned by the for-profit publisher Springer Nature, while bioRxiv and medRxiv are nonprofit servers now governed by openRxiv, an independent 501(c)(3) that took over from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) in March 2025. Both are free for authors to use, but the ownership structure behind each one shapes fees, licensing control, data governance and long-term archival continuity in ways that matter for anyone advising authors on where to post.

    A preprint server is an online platform where researchers deposit manuscripts before, or independently of, formal peer review. Research Square, bioRxiv and medRxiv are three of the most widely used servers in the life, health and biomedical sciences, and authors are increasingly asked to choose between them without understanding what sits behind each brand.

    What Is the Core Difference Between Research Square and bioRxiv?

    The core difference is legal ownership and mission accountability, not scope or screening rigour. Research Square traces to American Journal Experts (AJE); Springer Nature took a minority stake in the Research Square platform in 2018, became majority owner in 2020, and completed full acquisition of Research Square Company in 2022. It is, today, a wholly commercial subsidiary of a for-profit publishing group.

    bioRxiv was founded in 2013 by John Inglis and Richard Sever at CSHL, a nonprofit research institution. medRxiv followed in 2019 as a partnership between CSHL, Yale University and BMJ. In March 2025, governance of both servers passed from CSHL to openRxiv, a newly formed independent nonprofit whose stated mission is “creating opportunities for sharing, discovering, and advancing preprints in the life and health sciences” — with a dedicated board and a Scientific and Medical Advisory Board of researchers overseeing policy.

    Feature Research Square bioRxiv / medRxiv (via openRxiv)
    Governing entity Springer Nature (for-profit publisher) openRxiv (independent nonprofit, 501(c)(3))
    Platform launched 2016, under Research Square Company bioRxiv 2013; medRxiv 2019
    Ownership shift Minority stake 2018 → majority 2020 → full acquisition 2022 Transitioned from CSHL to independent nonprofit, March 2025
    Author posting fee Free Free
    Sustainability model Cross-subsidised by Springer Nature publishing and AJE author-services revenue Philanthropic and institutional grants (Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Sergey Brin Family Foundation, Robert Lourie Foundation, partner universities)
    Default licence CC-BY 4.0 required for all preprints Author’s choice: CC0, CC-BY, CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-ND, CC-BY-NC-ND, or no reuse without permission
    Journal integration In Review, tied to 1,000+ participating journals No equivalent journal-submission integration
    Bulk text-and-data-mining access No published bulk TDM programme; access via Crossref metadata and the site Monthly XML/PDF corpus via a requester-pays AWS S3 bucket, plus a public metadata API
    Long-term preservation Portico Portico

    Who Pays, and How Is Each Platform Funded?

    Neither model charges authors to post a preprint — that much is identical. What differs is where the money to run the platform comes from, and what that implies about future incentives. Research Square’s operating costs are absorbed by Springer Nature’s commercial publishing business and by AJE’s paid author-services division (editing, translation and related products), which Research Square continues to cross-sell alongside free preprint posting.

    openRxiv, by contrast, depends on renewable philanthropic and institutional grants rather than a parent company’s revenue. Its principal funders include the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, the Robert Lourie Foundation and a consortium of supporting universities including Caltech, MIT, Stanford, Yale and the University of Washington. That is a genuine trade-off, not a straightforward win for either side:

    • Research Square’s commercial backing gives it predictable, revenue-linked funding, but ties its long-term direction to Springer Nature’s corporate strategy.
    • openRxiv’s nonprofit funding is mission-locked by governance structure, but depends on grant renewal cycles rather than a guaranteed revenue stream.

    Who Owns and Controls Author Data?

    Ownership of the underlying manuscript stays with authors on both platforms — this is not a copyright grab by either side. The meaningful difference is licensing control and third-party data access. Research Square requires every posted preprint to carry a CC-BY 4.0 licence, which is the most permissive open licence and maximises reuse rights for readers, but leaves authors no choice in the matter.

    bioRxiv and medRxiv give authors a menu of licence options — CC0, CC-BY, CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-ND, CC-BY-NC-ND, or a “no reuse without permission” setting — and authors can change the licence on an existing preprint after posting. That is more author control, though funders that mandate CC-BY (a growing norm, including under several cOAlition S-aligned policies) require authors to actively select it rather than receiving it by default.

    The two models also diverge sharply on bulk data access. openRxiv publishes a full monthly XML/PDF text-and-data-mining corpus through a requester-pays AWS S3 bucket, alongside a public metadata API — an open-infrastructure commitment consistent with nonprofit, grant-funded governance. Research Square does not publish an equivalent bulk TDM feed; third-party discovery of Research Square content runs through Crossref DOI metadata and the platform’s own search interface rather than a dedicated open corpus.

    What Long-Term Archival Guarantees Does Each Model Offer?

    Both platforms use the same third-party preservation service: Portico provides perpetual-access archiving for preprints posted to Research Square, bioRxiv and medRxiv alike, so the archive itself is not where the two models diverge.

    The real difference is organisational continuity risk. A commercial platform’s archival commitments are ultimately corporate policy that could change with ownership or strategy; a nonprofit platform’s commitments are set by a mission-bound board, though it carries the separate risk of grant-funding renewal. Advising authors on a multi-decade preprint record means treating “who governs the archive” as distinct from “where is the archive stored.”

    Common Questions About Research Square and bioRxiv

    Is bioRxiv reputable?

    Yes. bioRxiv is widely cited across molecular and cell biology, screens submissions for plagiarism and non-scientific content, and is now governed by openRxiv, an independent nonprofit with a Scientific and Medical Advisory Board. Its reputation rests on community adoption and transparent, nonprofit governance rather than commercial incentives.

    Does bioRxiv count as published?

    No. A bioRxiv or medRxiv preprint is not peer-reviewed and does not constitute formal publication. The ICMJE treats preprints as legitimate scholarly communication, not duplicate publication, but funders and REF-style assessment exercises generally still require the peer-reviewed version for compliance credit.

    Is bioRxiv a preprint?

    bioRxiv is not itself a preprint — it is the server that hosts preprints. A preprint is the individual manuscript version posted before or independent of peer review; bioRxiv is the nonprofit infrastructure, now under openRxiv, that makes that posting possible for life-science research.

    What are the alternatives to bioRxiv?

    Alternatives include medRxiv for clinical and public-health research, Research Square for multidisciplinary and journal-integrated posting, and repository-style options such as arXiv, the Open Science Framework, Figshare and Zenodo. The right choice depends on discipline, human-subjects status and whether journal-integrated posting matters.

    What This Means for Authors and Research Administrators

    For most authors, the nonprofit-versus-commercial distinction will not change whether posting is free — it usually is, on both models. It should change how administrators frame the advice they give:

    • Explain that Research Square’s mandatory CC-BY licence maximises reuse but removes licensing choice, while bioRxiv/medRxiv give authors more control over which licence applies.
    • Flag that researchers doing large-scale corpus analysis will find far richer bulk access through openRxiv’s TDM feeds than through Research Square.
    • Note that archival preservation (Portico) is equivalent across models — the open question is who controls future platform policy, not the archive.
    • Treat commercial ownership as a disclosure point, not a disqualifier: Springer Nature’s backing gives Research Square’s In Review workflow journal-integration value a nonprofit model does not replicate.

    As more research administration offices build formal preprint guidance into their researcher-facing documentation, the originating business model behind a server deserves the same disclosure as its discipline coverage or screening depth. Authors are entitled to know not just where their manuscript will sit, but who ultimately governs the platform holding it — a nonprofit board answerable to a research mission, or a commercial parent answerable to shareholders.

    Last updated: 3 July 2026.