CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: biorxiv submission requirements

  • PNAS bioRxiv Direct Submission: How B2J Works

    The PNAS bioRxiv submission pathway runs through bioRxiv’s own bioRxiv-to-journal (B2J) transfer tool, which sends manuscript files, figures and author metadata straight from a preprint’s “Author Area” into a partner journal’s editorial system. PNAS Nexus, the open-access companion journal published with Oxford University Press, is a listed B2J partner; the flagship PNAS journal instead accepts bioRxiv preprints under its standard “posting is permitted” policy, handled through ordinary manual submission. Nature and eLife each use a third and fourth mechanism again — this guide maps all of them.

    Direct submission, in the strict bioRxiv sense, means B2J: an automated transfer of files and metadata that removes the need to re-upload a manuscript at the receiving journal. That is a narrower, more specific claim than “the journal accepts preprints,” and conflating the two is the most common error in advice about preprint-to-journal workflows.

    Does PNAS accept direct submission from bioRxiv?

    Yes, but the route depends on which PNAS title is involved. PNAS’s Standard License Terms state that authors retain “the right to post the manuscript on preprint servers such as arXiv or bioRxiv,” and its editorial policies confirm that posting on preprint servers “is permitted and will not affect editorial consideration.” That is a preprint-tolerance policy, not a file-transfer mechanism.

    For an actual B2J connection — where bioRxiv pushes the manuscript and metadata into the journal’s submission system — the relevant partner on bioRxiv’s own list is PNAS Nexus, the fully open-access companion journal the National Academy of Sciences launched with Oxford University Press in 2022. Authors submitting to the flagship PNAS still upload independently and disclose the bioRxiv DOI in their cover letter or submission form.

    How does bioRxiv’s B2J transfer system actually work?

    bioRxiv describes B2J as a service that “can save authors time in submitting papers to journals or peer review services by transmitting their manuscript files and metadata directly from bioRxiv.” Authors do not re-enter author lists, funding statements or figure files; the receiving journal’s system pulls them from the preprint record.

    bioRxiv’s live Submission Guide lists 192 partner journals and peer-review services participating in B2J at the time of this analysis (mid-2026), spanning the PLOS family, EMBO’s three journals, Cell Press titles such as Cell Reports and Cell Genomics, the Royal Society’s journals, AAAS’s Science-family titles (Science Advances, Science Immunology, Science Signaling, Science Translational Medicine), Genetics Society journals, and independent review services including Review Commons.

    • Confirm the preprint version you want to transfer — revisions keep the same DOI, so specify the version-specific URL if it matters.
    • Select a reuse licence on bioRxiv (CC BY, CC BY-NC, CC BY-ND, CC BY-NC-ND or CC0) before transfer, since this travels with the metadata.
    • Check the receiving journal’s own preprint-disclosure requirement — B2J moves files, but editorial policy compliance remains the author’s responsibility.
    • Verify funder mandate compatibility (for example NIH Public Access or cOAlition S requirements) before relying on the preprint version alone for compliance.

    bioRxiv itself is operated by openRxiv, described on its own Submission Guide as “a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science communication” — a distinct entity from any single receiving journal, which is why B2J participation is a per-journal opt-in list rather than a universal feature.

    How does Nature handle bioRxiv preprints?

    Nature and most Nature-branded journals treat a bioRxiv posting as compatible with submission, not as prior publication, so authors can submit a manuscript that already exists as a bioRxiv preprint. Unlike PNAS Nexus, however, neither the flagship Nature journal nor its major sister titles appear on bioRxiv’s public B2J partner list, so there is no automated file transfer from bioRxiv into Nature’s own submission system as of this analysis.

    The practical route is the standard one: submit through the journal’s own online system and disclose the preprint DOI in the cover letter. Springer Nature separately runs “In Review,” a partnership with Research Square that posts a preprint alongside transparent, published peer-review reports for participating journals — a related but functionally different bridge from bioRxiv’s B2J, since it originates on the journal side rather than the preprint-server side.

    How does eLife’s preprint-review model differ?

    eLife’s relationship with bioRxiv is the tightest of the three, but it is not a simple file-transfer either. eLife announced its bioRxiv-integrated transfer option in 2017, letting authors “upload a preprint to bioRxiv first and then transfer their files for consideration by eLife.” In December 2020, eLife announced it would require all new submissions to be posted as preprints on bioRxiv, medRxiv or an equivalent server before review — a policy shift reported by Science/AAAS at the time.

    Since its 2023 “Publish, Review, Curate” model, eLife no longer issues accept/reject decisions after review. Every manuscript it reviews is published as a Reviewed Preprint — the bioRxiv (or medRxiv) posting itself, plus public peer reviews and an eLife Assessment summarising significance and evidence strength. The preprint version and the eLife editorial layer stay linked rather than being replaced by a separate “Version of Record.”

    Journal / publisher Preprint policy Mechanism from bioRxiv Notable detail
    PNAS (flagship) Posting permitted; not prior publication Manual submission; author discloses DOI Reviewers may see the preprint version directly
    PNAS Nexus Same NAS preprint stance Listed bioRxiv B2J partner Open-access companion journal, launched with OUP in 2022
    Nature (and most sister titles) Preprints not treated as prior publication Standard submission; not on bioRxiv’s B2J list Separate “In Review” service via Research Square for some titles
    eLife Preprint posting required since Dec 2020 Author-initiated transfer from bioRxiv Author Area (since 2017) Since 2023, all reviewed papers are published as bioRxiv-linked Reviewed Preprints

    Common questions on bioRxiv journal submission

    Does PNAS allow bioRxiv?

    Yes. PNAS’s Standard License Terms and editorial policies explicitly state that posting on preprint servers such as arXiv or bioRxiv is permitted and does not count as prior publication. Authors must disclose the preprint and its DOI during submission, and the flagship title is submitted manually rather than via bioRxiv’s automated B2J transfer.

    Who owns bioRxiv?

    bioRxiv is operated by openRxiv, which describes itself as “a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science communication.” It is independent of any single publisher, which is why individual journals — including flagship PNAS and Nature — must separately opt in to its B2J transfer list rather than automatically inheriting it.

    Is eLife a preprint?

    Not exactly. eLife is a journal whose reviewed output is published as a Reviewed Preprint — the underlying bioRxiv or medRxiv posting plus eLife’s public peer reviews and an eLife Assessment. Since its 2023 model change, eLife does not issue a separate accept/reject “Version of Record”; the linked preprint remains the article of record.

    How long does a bioRxiv submission take?

    bioRxiv’s own FAQ states manuscripts are screened and typically post within hours of submission, with full-text HTML and XML conversion following one to two days later. This screening checks for offensive or non-scientific content and biosecurity risk, not scientific validity — bioRxiv preprints are explicitly not peer-reviewed before posting.

    What this means for authors and research offices

    For corresponding authors, the practical takeaway is definitional precision: check whether a target journal is a bioRxiv B2J partner (automated transfer) or merely preprint-tolerant (manual submission plus disclosure) before assuming a “direct” route exists. The two are not interchangeable, and the difference determines whether re-uploading files is necessary.

    For research administrators and institutional research offices tracking author compliance across preprint and published versions, the distinction also affects funder-mandate reporting: a bioRxiv posting satisfies green open-access requirements under policies such as those referenced by cOAlition S signatories, independent of whether the receiving journal later uses B2J or a manual route. Institutions monitoring this pipeline should treat “preprint accepted” and “direct B2J transfer available” as two separate checklist items, not one.

    Journal-side preprint bridges will likely keep diverging rather than converging: bioRxiv’s B2J list continues to add peer-review services (such as Review Commons) alongside traditional journals, while eLife’s Reviewed Preprint model and Springer Nature’s In Review service represent journal-initiated alternatives built for transparency rather than upload convenience. Authors and research offices should expect to track policy pages per title rather than assume a single universal standard.

  • bioRxiv Template: LaTeX & Word Formatting Guide

    A bioRxiv manuscript template is a formatting scaffold — in LaTeX or Word — that arranges title page, abstract, figures, and references to match bioRxiv’s posting system, but bioRxiv itself mandates no single template. Authors may submit a plain PDF, a Word file with separate figures, or a LaTeX-derived PDF built from one of several community templates. This guide walks through each formatting field so a manuscript is ready for upload on the first attempt, rather than repeating the general submission-guidelines overview already covered elsewhere on this site.

    bioRxiv is the preprint server for biology, operated by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, that posts unpublished research manuscripts after a basic screening step rather than peer review.

    Does bioRxiv Require a Specific Manuscript Template?

    No. bioRxiv’s own guidance states that it “does not require a particular article format/style,” and submission formats can therefore vary considerably between manuscripts. The bioRxiv Submission Guide describes the simplest route as uploading a single PDF containing the full text, figures, and tables.

    This absence of a mandatory template is precisely why community-built templates exist: authors want the discipline of a fixed structure — title page order, figure placement, reference formatting — even though bioRxiv will accept a manuscript without one. The trade-off is that a template also signals to co-authors and affiliates conducting screening that the manuscript is complete and properly ordered.

    Which LaTeX Template Should You Use for bioRxiv?

    For LaTeX users, Overleaf hosts several bioRxiv-tagged templates that compile directly to a submission-ready PDF. Two are widely used within the biology preprint community, and both descend from the same lineage: the HenriquesLab bioRxiv template, itself a modification of the PNAS journal template.

    The quantixed/manuscript-templates repository extends this further: a single manuscript source can generate either a typeset preprint layout (\documentclass[twocolumn]{bioRxiv}) or a line-numbered journal-submission layout (\documentclass[submit]{bioRxiv}) by commenting one line in a merge file, avoiding two parallel documents. It also adds native \orcidlink support so ORCID iDs render correctly on the title page.

    Template Format Platform Notable field-level feature
    arXiv/bioRxiv template LaTeX Overleaf General-purpose preprint layout with figure embedding
    HenriquesLab bioRxiv template LaTeX Overleaf PNAS-derived styling built specifically for bioRxiv
    quantixed/manuscript-templates LaTeX GitHub / Overleaf Switchable preprint vs. journal-submission layout; ORCID support
    chrelli/bioRxiv-word-template Word (.docx) GitHub Styled headings and figure captions for non-LaTeX authors
    finkelsteinlab/BioRxiv-Template Word (.docx) GitHub Reader-friendly layout aimed at readability over journal mimicry

    Whichever LaTeX template is used, the .tex source must still be compiled and converted to PDF before upload — bioRxiv’s submission system does not accept raw .tex files.

    Formatting a bioRxiv Manuscript in Word

    Authors who do not use LaTeX can format directly in Microsoft Word using a template such as the chrelli or finkelsteinlab bioRxiv templates on GitHub, both designed to visually approximate a typeset preprint while remaining fully editable. The practical field order to follow is:

    • Title page: full title, author list, institutional affiliations, ORCID iDs, and the corresponding author’s contact details.
    • Abstract: a single unstructured paragraph summarising rationale, method, and findings.
    • Main text: Introduction, Results, Discussion, and Methods — bioRxiv does not enforce a fixed section order, so discipline-specific conventions (e.g. Methods-first for some biology sub-fields) are acceptable.
    • Figures and tables: either embedded in-line at first citation or supplied as separate files.
    • Author Contributions: a statement of who did what, increasingly expressed using the CRediT contributor role taxonomy.
    • Competing interests and funding: brief declarations, matching journal norms.
    • References and, where applicable, a separate Supplementary Information reference list.

    On the Author Contributions field: CASRAI originated the CRediT contributor role taxonomy in 2014. The standard is now stewarded by NISO as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022, and mapping each author to a defined CRediT role gives the statement a machine-readable structure that a free-text sentence lacks.

    What File Formats and Figure Rules Does bioRxiv Require?

    bioRxiv’s accepted formats are narrower than they first appear, and mismatched file types are a common cause of upload failure.

    • Main text: PDF, Microsoft Word, or WordPerfect.
    • Figures and tables submitted separately: GIF, TIFF, EPS, or JPEG.
    • Supplemental files: posted largely as-is, so a wider range of file types is tolerated.
    • LaTeX source: must be compiled to PDF before submission; the system does not ingest .tex directly.

    bioRxiv also offers a print-friendly, in-line-figure PDF generated automatically from the full-text HTML of a posted preprint — a feature introduced in February 2022 specifically so readers are not limited to the author’s originally submitted figure placement.

    Article type matters as much as file type. bioRxiv categorises submissions as New Results, Confirmatory Results, or Contradictory Results; narrative reviews, commentaries, opinion pieces, and step-by-step protocols are not considered appropriate for the server. New manuscripts reporting clinical trial results must go to medRxiv instead of bioRxiv.

    How Does bioRxiv Assign a DOI, and How Should a Preprint Be Cited?

    Every bioRxiv preprint receives a Crossref DOI under the 10.1101/ prefix as soon as it clears screening and posts — no separate application step is required from the author. This DOI remains stable through subsequent revised versions of the same preprint.

    For citation, most style guides treat a bioRxiv preprint as a standard journal-style reference carrying a DOI instead of (or alongside) volume and page numbers; Wikipedia maintains a dedicated {{Biorxiv}} citation template for exactly this purpose. Once a preprint is later published in a peer-reviewed journal, citing conventions typically shift to the journal DOI, with the preprint DOI retained as a historical record of priority.

    Frequently Asked Questions About bioRxiv Submission

    Can anyone submit to bioRxiv?

    Yes. Any author may deposit a manuscript on bioRxiv provided it covers a relevant scientific field, is unpublished at the time of submission, and all co-authors have consented to its deposition. Authors must first register on the submission site before uploading a manuscript.

    How much does it cost to submit to bioRxiv?

    There is no fee to submit an article to bioRxiv. This distinguishes it from many journals’ article-processing charges and from some other preprint servers that levy optional support fees, making template correctness — not payment — the main barrier to a smooth first submission.

    Can you put a paper on bioRxiv after submitting it to a journal?

    Yes. A manuscript can be posted to bioRxiv at any point before a journal formally publishes it, and new revised versions can be posted at any time up to journal publication or assignment of a journal DOI, provided the target journal’s own preprint policy permits it.

    When should you submit to bioRxiv?

    There is no fixed submission window: a manuscript can go to bioRxiv at any stage before journal publication, including alongside or ahead of journal submission. Once a paper has already been formally published by a journal, it can no longer be submitted to bioRxiv.

    What This Means for Authors and Institutions

    The lack of a mandatory bioRxiv template shifts formatting risk onto the author rather than the platform. Choosing a maintained LaTeX template, such as one built to switch between preprint and journal-submission layouts, or a Word template with pre-styled headings, reduces reformatting work twice: once for the preprint and again when the manuscript is later reshaped for a target journal.

    For research offices and library preprint-support teams, standardising on one or two vetted templates — and requiring CRediT-tagged Author Contributions statements — creates consistency across a department’s preprint output without waiting for bioRxiv itself to impose a house style. As preprints increasingly carry citable, versioned DOIs from the moment of posting, formatting discipline at submission time has become part of an institution’s research-integrity record, not just a cosmetic step.

  • bioRxiv Review Process: Screening Explained

    bioRxiv review is not peer review — it is a two-stage screening process. In-house staff and volunteer Principal Investigators check every submission for plagiarism, non-scientific content, inappropriate article types, and material that could endanger public health, typically within 24-48 hours. Roughly 5% of submissions do not meet bioRxiv’s posting criteria and are returned, escalated for discussion, or declined outright.

    bioRxiv is a preprint server for the life sciences, operated by the non-profit openRxiv, that posts complete but unpublished manuscripts online before formal journal peer review begins. Understanding what its screening actually checks for — and what happens when a submission does not clear it — helps authors avoid the delays that come from an incomplete or out-of-scope submission.

    What does bioRxiv’s review actually screen for?

    bioRxiv’s screening exists to keep the server usable and safe, not to certify scientific validity. Every submission is checked against a fixed set of criteria before it is allowed to post.

    According to bioRxiv’s own FAQ, all articles are screened on submission for four things: plagiarism, non-scientific content, inappropriate article types, and material that could endanger the health of individual patients or the public. That last category explicitly includes studies describing dual-use research of concern, and work that challenges or could compromise accepted public health advice on infectious disease transmission, immunisation, or therapy.

    • Automated text analysis for plagiarism and content already published elsewhere
    • Manual checks that the manuscript is a genuine research article, not a review, opinion piece, protocol-only submission, or product announcement
    • Screening for images or details that could identify a patient or study participant
    • Assessment of whether findings could alarm or mislead the public if posted without peer review

    Manuscripts already published in a journal cannot be submitted, and a preprint cannot sit on both bioRxiv and its sister server medRxiv simultaneously — doing so results in withdrawal of the article.

    How does the two-stage screening process work?

    bioRxiv runs a defined two-step pipeline rather than a single editorial check. Both stages must be passed before a manuscript posts.

    The first stage is in-house screening. According to bioRxiv’s screening-procedures notice, staff with scientific and editorial backgrounds verify that submission fields are complete, that group authors are not mis-listed as individuals, and that the manuscript is an appropriate article type — a research article is accepted; a narrative review, commentary, opinion piece, or standalone protocol is not. This stage also runs the automated plagiarism check.

    The second stage is Affiliate screening. Volunteer Principal Investigators, known as bioRxiv Affiliates, ask two questions: does the manuscript present biological research, and is there potential for public harm from posting it as a preprint? If an Affiliate has concerns on either point, the submission is flagged for further in-house discussion rather than posted automatically.

    bioRxiv states that this combined process “typically takes 24–48 hours, but can take longer over weekends and holidays, or if the submission requires in-house discussion and further correspondence with authors.” Its FAQ separately notes preprints “usually appear on bioRxiv within 72 hours” once screening and formatting are complete — the wider window accounts for queueing and the PDF-to-HTML conversion that follows posting.

    What happens when a preprint is held, escalated, or declined?

    Screening produces one of five outcomes, not a simple accept/reject binary. Manuscripts can be escalated at any stage for discussion by bioRxiv’s Content Team and, where needed, its Founders or external advisors — commonly because the article type or content falls outside scope, or because it contains conclusions that could cause public alarm, such as data disputing an established toxicity or carcinogenicity finding.

    Outcome What it means Typical trigger Author’s next step
    Posted Preprint goes live, usually within 24-72 hours Passes in-house and Affiliate checks No action needed; revisions remain possible later
    Returned for correction Sent back before posting Missing metadata, formatting errors, incomplete author or funder details Correct fields in the Author Area and resubmit
    Escalated for discussion Flagged for internal review Scope question, or risk of misleading/alarming the public Await correspondence; respond promptly to queries
    Transferred to medRxiv bioRxiv submission closed; author redirected by email Manuscript judged better suited to medRxiv’s clinical/health scope Resubmit via submit.medrxiv.org, which runs a separate screening team
    Declined Does not proceed to posting Fails scope or safety criteria, or judged “better disseminated after peer review” due to public-impact risk Address the specific concern and pursue journal peer review, or resubmit once the issue is resolved

    bioRxiv reports that approximately 5% of submissions are found not to meet its posting criteria. Content judged out of scope for public-health reasons is typically redirected to medRxiv rather than declined outright, since the two servers are co-managed but apply separate screening policies.

    What should authors do if their submission is held or declined?

    The correct response depends on which of the outcomes above applies. Treating every hold as a rejection — or every rejection as final — wastes time that a targeted fix would save.

    • If returned for correction: fix the flagged metadata field (author list, affiliations, funder ROR ID, special characters) directly in the Author Area; this is usually resolved within a day.
    • If escalated: respond promptly and specifically to any correspondence from bioRxiv’s Content Team — vague or delayed replies extend the discussion period.
    • If redirected to medRxiv: follow the email instructions to resubmit at submit.medrxiv.org; the bioRxiv submission is closed and cannot be revived.
    • If declined for scope or article type: check the FAQ’s excluded-content list before resubmitting — narrative reviews, case reports, hypothesis papers without new data, and standalone protocols are structurally out of scope, not fixable by rewording.
    • If declined for public-harm risk: bioRxiv’s stated position is that such findings are “better disseminated after peer review” — pursue a journal submission rather than repeated resubmission to the preprint server.

    Authors remain solely responsible for submitted content, including material produced with generative AI tools; AI systems are not permitted to be listed as authors. Institutional research-integrity offices should treat this authorial-responsibility principle consistently with their own authorship criteria and contributor-responsibility standards, since a preprint host’s screening does not substitute for an institution’s own compliance checks.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is bioRxiv reputable?

    Yes. bioRxiv is widely used across the life sciences and is indexed by Google Scholar, Crossref, Europe PubMed Central, and PubMed for NIH-funded work. It is not peer-reviewed, but its screening process and non-profit governance under openRxiv are well documented and independently verifiable.

    Why do people use bioRxiv?

    Authors use bioRxiv because formal peer review can take months, and preprints let other scientists see, discuss, and comment on findings immediately. It also lets researchers establish priority via a timestamped, citable DOI before journal publication concludes.

    Who owns bioRxiv?

    bioRxiv is operated by openRxiv, a non-profit founded by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. It is funded by a consortium including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, Caltech, Imperial College London, MIT, and Stanford — no single commercial owner controls the server.

    Is bioRxiv peer-reviewed?

    No. bioRxiv preprints are not certified by peer review, edited, or typeset before posting. Some manuscripts undergo peer review elsewhere concurrently, and those reviews may appear alongside the preprint on bioRxiv’s dashboard, but posting itself only requires passing screening.

    What this means for institutions and authors

    bioRxiv’s screening model draws a clear line that research-administration offices should reinforce internally: screening filters for scope, safety, and originality, while peer review evaluates scientific validity. The ICMJE’s Recommendations similarly caution that preprints have not been peer reviewed and should be identified as such wherever they are cited or discussed publicly. COPE’s guidance on preprints makes the same distinction, placing responsibility for research-integrity safeguards at this stage jointly on the server’s screening and the submitting institution.

    For authors, the practical takeaway is straightforward: a held or declined submission is almost always a scope, formatting, or safety issue with a defined remedy, not a verdict on the science. Reading bioRxiv’s excluded-content list and funder/author metadata requirements before submission remains the single most effective way to clear bioRxiv review on the first pass.

  • BioRxiv Submission Guidelines: A 5-Step Process for First-Time Authors

    BioRxiv submission guidelines require a single PDF (or Word file plus separate figure files), a free author-area registration, an article-category selection, and a two-step in-house-plus-Affiliate screening that typically clears in 24-48 hours. There is no submission fee, no mandatory template, and no peer review before posting. This guide walks first-time authors through each stage, the templates available, and the reasons manuscripts most often get sent back.

    bioRxiv is the life-sciences preprint server operated by the non-profit openRxiv; a preprint is a complete, citable manuscript posted before or during formal peer review, and bioRxiv assigns it a Crossref DOI (prefix 10.1101) as soon as screening is passed. Clinical trial reports and most epidemiology studies must instead go to bioRxiv’s sister server, medRxiv — submitting one of these to bioRxiv is itself a common rejection reason, covered in section four below.

    1. What are bioRxiv’s submission requirements?

    bioRxiv does not enforce a house style, but it does enforce a fixed submission format and a content-eligibility test. The manuscript must be unpublished at the time of deposit, all co-authors must have consented to posting, and the work must fall within a relevant life-sciences subject category.

    Submission route What you upload Conversion
    Single PDF Full text, figures and tables combined None needed — this is the simplest route
    Word + separate figures Word file for text/tables; figures as JPEG, TIFF, EPS or PowerPoint bioRxiv’s automated engine builds the PDF
    LaTeX Manuscript converted to PDF before upload (LaTeX source may accompany it as Supplemental Material) Author-side conversion required

    Large primary datasets belong in a community database such as GenBank or the Protein Data Bank rather than as Supplemental Material, in line with the Fort Lauderdale data-sharing guidelines that bioRxiv references directly in its submission guide.

    2. Setting up your bioRxiv author area

    Every submission starts with a free account on the bioRxiv Manuscript Processing System at submit.biorxiv.org. The bioRxiv author area is where you register, start a new submission, continue a saved draft, proof a converted manuscript, and later submit revisions.

    1. Register with an institutional or personal email address — no institutional affiliation is required to create an account.
    2. Enter the author area and select “Submit a New Manuscript.”
    3. Upload files, enter co-author details for every listed author, and add funder names and grant numbers.
    4. Select an article category: New Results, Confirmatory Results, or Contradictory Results.
    5. Choose a distribution licence — CC BY, CC BY-NC, CC BY-ND, CC BY-NC-ND, CC0, or no reuse.

    Copyright remains with the author throughout. Once a version is posted, it cannot be deleted, but authors can submit a revision at any time before journal acceptance via the same author-area screen.

    3. Choosing a manuscript template

    A bioRxiv template is optional, not mandatory — the platform explicitly states it does not require a particular article format or style, and many authors simply reuse the formatting of their target journal. Two community-maintained options cover most first-time authors.

    • Word template: a community-built .docx template on GitHub styled after published bioRxiv papers, useful if you want a clean starting structure without building one from scratch.
    • bioRxiv LaTeX template: several Overleaf templates are built specifically for bioRxiv preprints and can often be re-purposed for the eventual journal submission, saving reformatting time later in the pipeline.

    Whichever route you choose, convert LaTeX output to PDF before upload — bioRxiv’s system does not compile .tex source directly.

    4. What happens after you submit (timeline and screening)

    Submitted manuscripts go through two screening stages before posting. In-house staff first check completeness and confirm the article type is eligible; volunteer Principal Investigators known as bioRxiv Affiliates then assess whether the work constitutes genuine biological research and whether it poses any public-harm or biosecurity risk.

    This combined process is the answer to a frequent search — bioRxiv submission time — and typically completes within 24-48 hours of upload. Once approved, the PDF posts immediately; conversion to full-text HTML and XML can take a further 1-2 days, so the machine-readable version usually lags the PDF by up to 48 hours.

    Stage Typical duration
    Registration and upload Immediate
    In-house completeness/eligibility check Same day to 24 hours
    Affiliate biosecurity/scope review Within 24-48 hours total
    PDF posting after approval Immediate
    Full-text HTML/XML conversion Up to 48 additional hours

    5. Common rejection reasons and how to avoid them

    bioRxiv’s own screening documentation and content-scope rules point to a consistent set of avoidable rejections for first-time authors.

    • Wrong content type: case reports, narrative reviews, editorials, letters, opinion pieces, hypotheses without new data, and laboratory protocols without accompanying results are all excluded from bioRxiv’s scope.
    • Wrong server: clinical trial results and most epidemiology studies must go to medRxiv, not bioRxiv — this single misrouting error is one of the most common first-submission mistakes.
    • Already published: a manuscript that has already been accepted by a journal cannot be deposited as a new bioRxiv submission.
    • Missing author consent: every listed co-author must have agreed to posting before submission; disputes here stall or block screening.
    • Biosecurity or dual-use concerns: Affiliates specifically screen for material that could pose a health or biosecurity risk, which can delay or prevent posting even for otherwise sound science.
    • Non-scientific or promotional content: bioRxiv is explicitly not a channel for news, product advertisements, or policy statements.

    6. Frequently asked questions

    Can anyone submit to bioRxiv?

    Yes — any author whose manuscript concerns a relevant scientific field, is unpublished, and has the consent of all co-authors can deposit it after free registration. No institutional affiliation is required, and there is no submission fee.

    When should you submit to bioRxiv?

    A manuscript can be submitted at any point before journal publication. Once a journal has formally published the paper, it can no longer be newly deposited as a bioRxiv preprint, though the platform still allows revisions of an existing preprint right up to journal acceptance.

    How long does a bioRxiv submission take?

    Screening typically completes within 24-48 hours of upload, after which the PDF posts immediately. The full-text HTML and XML version follows separately and can take up to 48 further hours to appear.

    How much does it cost to submit to bioRxiv?

    There is no charge for registration or for depositing an article. bioRxiv funds screening and hosting as a non-profit service operated by openRxiv rather than through author-facing fees.

    7. Implications for research offices and institutions

    Research-administration teams increasingly track preprints as part of grant-compliance and output reporting, not just publication records. The U.S. National Institutes of Health has, since Notice NOT-OD-17-050, explicitly permitted investigators to cite preprints — including bioRxiv postings — in grant applications and progress reports, and cOAlition S’s Plan S framework recognises preprints as a valid interim compliance route ahead of a peer-reviewed version.

    Because a bioRxiv DOI is assigned at posting and persists across revisions, institutions can use it as a stable identifier to link the preprint, the eventual journal version, and contributor metadata. Where a project already uses the CRediT contributor role taxonomy to record who did what — CASRAI originated CRediT in 2014, and the taxonomy is now stewarded by NISO as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022 — carrying those role assignments into the preprint stage keeps authorship records consistent from first deposit through final publication.

    bioRxiv’s direct-transfer (B2J) programme, which now spans more than 190 partner journals and peer-review services, also removes a second manual re-entry step for research-office staff supporting authors through submission — files and metadata move directly from the bioRxiv author area to the receiving journal without being re-uploaded.

    Building preprinting into standard practice

    For first-time authors, the practical barrier to bioRxiv is low: no fee, no mandatory template, and a screening turnaround measured in hours rather than weeks. The remaining friction is almost entirely about content fit — choosing the right server, the right article category, and confirming every co-author has consented before upload.

    Institutions that build preprint deposit into standard research-administration workflows — alongside DOI tracking, contributor-role records, and funder-mandate checks — turn a one-off submission task into a repeatable, auditable step in the research lifecycle.