CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: is medrxiv a journal

  • 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.

  • bioRxiv vs arXiv: Two Funding Models Compared

    bioRxiv vs arXiv is fundamentally a contrast in governance age and funding model: bioRxiv now operates under openRxiv, an independent nonprofit launched in March 2025 with a $16 million Chan Zuckerberg Initiative grant, while arXiv left Cornell University on 1 July 2026 to become arXiv, Inc., a member-governed Delaware nonprofit. Both are open-access preprint repositories, but the organisations behind them have chosen different paths to long-term sustainability.

    A preprint server is a repository that distributes complete but not-yet-peer-reviewed research manuscripts, allowing authors to establish priority and gather feedback before formal journal publication. The choice between bioRxiv and arXiv is usually made on subject scope — but the more consequential difference, and the subject of this analysis, is who pays for each server and who is accountable for keeping it running.

    What is the core difference between bioRxiv and arXiv?

    bioRxiv is a preprint repository for the life sciences, co-founded by John Inglis and Richard Sever in November 2013 and originally hosted at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL). arXiv is the older, broader repository, launched in 1991 by physicist Paul Ginsparg to serve physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, statistics and economics.

    The subject-matter split is well documented elsewhere. What is less widely reported is that both organisations have, within the past sixteen months, exited the institutions that originally housed them and adopted new independent governance structures — bioRxiv (with its clinical-sciences sibling medRxiv) in March 2025, and arXiv on 1 July 2026. That timing makes a direct governance comparison newly possible.

    Who funds and governs bioRxiv today?

    bioRxiv and medRxiv are now operated by openRxiv, an independent nonprofit that launched in March 2025 after both servers transferred out of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. The spin-out was funded by a $16 million grant from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), with additional foundational support from CSHL, BMJ Group and Yale School of Medicine.

    openRxiv runs a researcher-led governance board rather than a single-institution reporting line. Its board is chaired by Scott Fraser, CZI’s vice-president of science grant programmes, and includes medRxiv co-founder Harlan Krumholz (Yale cardiologist), Princeton University president emeritus Shirley Tilghman, and CSHL president Bruce Stillman. This puts editorial and operational oversight in the hands of named scientists rather than a university administration.

    The scale bioRxiv now supports is substantial: the server has posted roughly 268,000 preprints from around 970,000 authors, adding approximately 4,000 new submissions a month, while medRxiv has posted around 64,000 preprints and adds roughly 1,000 monthly. Authors cannot post the same manuscript to both servers — submissions must be routed to bioRxiv for basic biology or medRxiv for clinical and public-health work.

    How is arXiv’s new independent nonprofit structured?

    arXiv formally left Cornell University on 1 July 2026 to become arXiv, Inc., a standalone Delaware nonprofit corporation. Under Delaware nonprofit law, arXiv, Inc. was established by two founding Members — the Simons Foundation and Cornell University — who appointed the initial Board of Directors and secured the organisation’s IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.

    The Board of Directors will hold up to twelve seats, with Cornell and Simons Foundation serving as founding Members for up to five years before the seat structure opens further. arXiv, Inc. launched with three years of operating funding already secured, and Simons Foundation has committed support for at least five years.

    Unlike openRxiv’s grant-anchored model, arXiv layers a community membership programme on top of philanthropic funding: participating institutions pay up to $10,000 a year, scaled to the volume of preprints they post, in exchange for a formal voice in governance and access to usage data. Recent gift and grant activity illustrates the scale of philanthropic backing involved — arXiv received a combined $10 million from the Simons Foundation and the National Science Foundation in 2023, and a further $7 million from Schmidt Sciences and NASA in November 2025 to fund cloud migration and codebase modernisation, according to Cornell Chronicle and the arXiv blog.

    bioRxiv vs arXiv: governance and funding at a glance

    Feature bioRxiv (via openRxiv) arXiv (arXiv, Inc.)
    Founded November 2013 1991
    Field focus Life sciences (medRxiv covers clinical/health) Physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, economics
    Prior institutional host Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, until March 2025 Cornell University, until 1 July 2026
    Current governing body openRxiv (independent nonprofit, launched March 2025) arXiv, Inc. (independent Delaware nonprofit, launched 1 July 2026)
    Governance structure Researcher-led board chaired by CZI’s Scott Fraser Up to 12-member Board of Directors; Simons Foundation and Cornell as founding Members
    Anchor funder / grant $16m Chan Zuckerberg Initiative grant (2025) $10m Simons Foundation/NSF (2023); $7m Schmidt Sciences/NASA (2025)
    Funding model Philanthropic grant-backed nonprofit Community membership fees (up to $10,000/institution) plus philanthropic grants
    Scale ~268,000 preprints, ~4,000 new/month 185,692 new submissions in 2022; 5m+ monthly active users

    What sustainability lessons does this hold for research infrastructure?

    Both transitions solve the same underlying problem — a critical piece of scholarly infrastructure had outgrown dependence on a single host institution’s budget and administrative structure — but they reach different equilibria. openRxiv concentrates funding risk in a small number of major philanthropic grants and a named scientific board; arXiv, Inc. spreads risk across founding-Member philanthropy, a rotating board, and a paying community membership base that also confers governance voice.

    For research-administration audiences, the comparison matters beyond preprints. Standards bodies, taxonomies and shared research infrastructure face the identical sustainability question: who pays when the founding host can no longer carry the cost, and who is accountable once it leaves? arXiv’s membership-fee model gives institutional funders a formal stake in governance decisions, which can improve long-term buy-in but adds administrative overhead; openRxiv’s grant-concentrated model is faster to stand up but leaves the organisation more exposed to a single funder’s priorities.

    • Diversified funding (multiple grants plus membership fees) tends to reduce single-point-of-failure risk, at the cost of governance complexity.
    • A named, credentialed scientific board — as both openRxiv and arXiv, Inc. now have — signals accountability to funders and the research community alike.
    • A founding-institution “off-ramp” clause (Cornell and Simons Foundation’s five-year Member term) gives a transition period without permanent institutional lock-in.

    Neither model has a multi-year track record yet: openRxiv is little more than a year old, and arXiv, Inc. has been operating for two days at the time of writing. The next eighteen to thirty-six months, as both organisations report their first independent financial results, will be the real test of which governance structure proves more resilient.

    Common questions about bioRxiv and arXiv

    Is arXiv the same as bioRxiv?

    No. arXiv and bioRxiv are separate organisations with different founding dates, subject scopes and governance structures. arXiv (1991) covers physics, mathematics and computer science and is now run by the independent nonprofit arXiv, Inc.; bioRxiv (2013) covers life sciences and is run by the separate nonprofit openRxiv.

    Who owns bioRxiv?

    bioRxiv has no single owner; it is operated by openRxiv, an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit that launched in March 2025 after transferring from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. The transition was backed by a $16 million grant from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and governed by a researcher-led board.

    Is bioRxiv considered a publication?

    No. bioRxiv describes itself as a repository for preprints — complete but unpublished manuscripts that have not undergone peer review. Two-thirds of bioRxiv preprints are later published in peer-reviewed journals, but the preprint itself is not treated as the final scholarly record.

    Is arXiv a respected journal?

    arXiv is not a journal at all — it is a moderated preprint repository. Submissions are checked by volunteer moderators for scope and appropriateness but are not peer-reviewed in the journal sense, even though arXiv is widely regarded as authoritative within physics, mathematics and computer science.

    Both organisations illustrate that community-run research infrastructure now increasingly separates itself from any single host institution, replacing it with dedicated nonprofit governance and diversified funding. Institutions engaged in research administration evaluating which model to support — or which to emulate for other shared infrastructure — should watch how each organisation reports its first full year of independent finances.

  • BioRxiv PubMed Indexing: How the NIH Pilot Works

    BioRxiv PubMed indexing is not automatic. Preprints reach PubMed through a single federal mechanism — the NIH Preprint Pilot, run by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) — which pulls in preprints that acknowledge direct NIH funding or carry an NIH-affiliated author, provided they were posted from 1 January 2023 onward under the pilot’s current phase.

    The NIH Preprint Pilot is an NLM programme that makes NIH-funded preprints from eligible servers — bioRxiv, medRxiv, arXiv, and Research Square — discoverable through PubMed Central (PMC) and PubMed ahead of formal peer review, with a corresponding citation added on a weekly cycle.

    What is the NIH Preprint Pilot?

    The NIH Preprint Pilot began in June 2020 as a narrow, COVID-19-only initiative. NLM made more than 3,300 preprints reporting NIH-supported SARS-CoV-2 research discoverable in PMC and PubMed between June 2020 and June 2022, testing whether preprint records could accelerate discovery during a public-health emergency.

    Phase 2 launched on 30 January 2023 and dropped the COVID-only restriction. It now covers any preprint that acknowledges direct NIH support and/or lists an NIH-affiliated author, posted to an eligible server on or after 1 January 2023. Eligible preprints are added to PMC on a weekly basis and receive a corresponding PubMed citation automatically — authors do not submit anything separately.

    How a preprint moves from bioRxiv to PubMed

    The pipeline is largely invisible to authors and runs on a fixed weekly cadence. NLM does not wait for a submission; it identifies eligible content and pulls it in automatically, then layers PubMed on top of the PMC record.

    • Identification: NLM text-mines new bioRxiv and medRxiv postings for NIH-support acknowledgements and cross-checks the NIH Office of Portfolio Analysis tool for NIH-affiliated authors.
    • PMC ingestion: Citation and abstract metadata are pulled from the preprint server’s machine-readable feed to build an “article header” record, and a PMCID is assigned immediately to enable rapid discovery.
    • PubMed record creation: Once the PMC record exists, NLM generates the corresponding PubMed citation the same week, tagged with publication type “Preprint.”
    • Full-text conversion: Preprints posted under a Creative Commons licence enter a separate workflow to produce archival full-text XML, a process NLM says takes a few days and enables full-text search within PMC.

    Every record carries a prominent yellow information panel confirming the work has not been peer-reviewed, and NLM runs weekly checks — against the bioRxiv API, the Crossref API, and the Europe PMC API — to link a preprint to its eventual journal version, updating the PubMed status to “Updated” once that link is confirmed.

    Which preprint servers qualify

    Only four servers currently feed the pilot. NLM evaluates candidate servers against a published checklist — clear non-peer-review labelling, transparent versioning, open licensing information, machine-readable metadata, and a public archiving policy — modelled on NIH’s 2017 interim-research-products guidance (NOT-OD-17-050) and COPE’s preprint discussion document.

    Server Subject scope Operator DOI registration
    bioRxiv Life sciences openRxiv (independent nonprofit, formerly a Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory service) Crossref
    medRxiv Health and clinical sciences openRxiv, with Yale University and BMJ as founding partners Crossref
    arXiv Physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology Cornell University Crossref
    Research Square Multidisciplinary Research Square Company Crossref

    bioRxiv and medRxiv are the two servers most relevant to biomedical research administrators, since both fall under openRxiv, the independent nonprofit that took over operation of both platforms from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. openRxiv’s separation from a single host institution was framed explicitly around long-term sustainability for the two servers NIH now indexes directly — a governance detail that matters for anyone assessing the pilot’s durability, since NLM’s own eligibility criteria require a “publicly stated archiving strategy to ensure long-term access.”

    What this means for discoverability, DOIs, and citation

    PubMed indexing changes where a preprint can be found, not whether it can be cited. Every bioRxiv preprint already receives a DOI registered through Crossref at posting, which is what makes it part of the citable scientific record regardless of NIH eligibility.

    According to bioRxiv’s own FAQ, preprints are indexed by “Google, all other search engines, Google Scholar, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, Europe PubMed Central, and Preprint Citation Index (connected to the Web of Science)” independent of the NIH pilot — PubMed indexing is an additional, funder-gated channel layered on top of that baseline discoverability.

    One clarification worth making explicitly: bioRxiv and medRxiv do not carry a Scimago Journal Rank or an impact factor. Both metrics are journal-level indicators computed from peer-reviewed citation data; a preprint server is a distribution platform, not a journal, so no SJR score exists for bioRxiv as a whole, and any figure circulating under “bioRxiv impact factor” searches is not an NLM, Crossref, or Scimago-sourced metric.

    Indexing also does not substitute for compliance. NLM is explicit that even when a preprint sits in PMC under the pilot, the NIH Public Access Policy still requires the peer-reviewed, accepted author manuscript to be separately deposited via NIHMS, with its own PMCID reported as proof of compliance.

    Answer-first questions about bioRxiv and PubMed

    Does bioRxiv show up in PubMed?

    Yes, but only conditionally. A bioRxiv preprint appears in PubMed only if it acknowledges direct NIH funding or lists an NIH-affiliated author and was posted under Phase 2 of the NIH Preprint Pilot (from 1 January 2023). Non-NIH preprints stay discoverable via Google Scholar, Crossref, and Europe PMC instead.

    What is a preprint in PubMed?

    In PubMed, a preprint is a record carrying the publication type “Preprint,” which separates it from peer-reviewed literature in search filters. It displays a yellow information panel stating the work has not undergone peer review, and PubMed links it automatically to the journal version once one is published.

    Does bioRxiv count as published?

    No. bioRxiv distributes complete but unpublished manuscripts, so posting there is not equivalent to journal publication. A preprint carries a DOI and is part of the citable record, but it lacks the peer-review certification that ICMJE and COPE norms attach to a published article.

    Is it okay to cite bioRxiv?

    Yes. bioRxiv preprints receive a DOI through Crossref, making them formally citable, and are indexed by Google Scholar, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, and Europe PMC. Authors citing them should flag that the underlying findings have not yet completed peer review.

    Why other funders are watching the pilot

    NIH’s approach is unusual because it is infrastructural rather than a mandate: it does not require authors to preprint, it simply makes eligible preprints easier to find once posted. That distinction is why other funders are studying it rather than replicating it wholesale.

    cOAlition S, the funder coalition behind Plan S, already treats preprints as an acceptable route to satisfying immediate open-access requirements, but no cOAlition S member currently operates an equivalent centralised indexing pipeline into a national biomedical database. UKRI’s open access policy similarly recognises preprints as compliant interim outputs without building comparable PMC-style ingestion.

    For research administrators, the practical takeaway is that discoverability infrastructure and funder mandates remain two separate policy levers. NIH has built the first at meaningful scale; whether other national funders follow with their own PMC-equivalent indexing pipeline — rather than policy language alone — is the open question institutions tracking preprint compliance should watch through 2026 and beyond.

  • Is medRxiv Reputable? Screening vs bioRxiv Explained

    medRxiv is a reputable, non-profit preprint server for medicine and the health sciences, co-founded in 2019 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Yale University and BMJ, and since March 2025 operated by the independent non-profit openRxiv. It is reputable as a rapid-dissemination archive, not as a substitute for peer review: every preprint carries an explicit warning that it has not been certified by peer review and must not be used to guide clinical practice.

    medRxiv is defined by its own operators as an online repository for preprints — complete but unpublished manuscripts — in medicine, clinical research and related health sciences, distributed free of charge before formal peer review.

    What screening does medRxiv apply before posting a preprint?

    medRxiv operates a screening process, not a peer-review process. Submissions are checked by in-house staff and an affiliate network of scientists and clinicians for plagiarism, non-scientific content, and material that could plausibly cause harm if acted on before formal review. Manuscripts that pass screening are posted unedited and unproofed, exactly as submitted, with an author-supplied DOI-bearing record that remains permanently linked to any later journal publication.

    This is a materially lighter bar than peer review. medRxiv’s own FAQ states plainly that submissions “are not certified by scientific peer review, edited, or typeset before being posted online,” and that they “may contain errors and/or omissions.” The screening exists to filter out fraud and clearly dangerous content — not to validate methodology, statistics or conclusions.

    How does medRxiv’s screening differ from bioRxiv’s?

    medRxiv and bioRxiv share governance, infrastructure and an operator (openRxiv) but apply different levels of scrutiny because their content carries different real-world risk. bioRxiv covers basic and translational biology — work several steps removed from direct patient action. medRxiv covers clinical trials, epidemiological studies, case reports and public-health research that a patient, clinician or journalist could misread as actionable guidance the same day it is posted.

    As a result, medRxiv layers an additional clinical-risk screen onto the standard plagiarism and legitimacy checks, and it carries a more prominent, standardised disclaimer banner than bioRxiv’s — one that explicitly tells readers not to use the content “to guide clinical practice or health-related behaviour” and not to report it “in news media as established information.” That distinction matters for how research offices and communications teams should treat the two archives when advising authors or fielding press enquiries.

    Feature medRxiv bioRxiv
    Subject scope Clinical, epidemiological and health-sciences research Basic and translational biology
    Additional clinical-risk screen Yes — checks for content that could pose a direct health risk Not applied in the same form
    Clinical-guidance disclaimer Prominent, standardised warning banner on every preprint Standard preprint notice, less clinically specific
    Operator (since March 2025) openRxiv (non-profit) openRxiv (non-profit)

    Is medRxiv peer reviewed, and is it indexed in PubMed?

    No. medRxiv preprints are not peer reviewed at the point of posting. medRxiv is, however, indexed by Crossref, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, Europe PubMed Central, and Web of Science’s Preprint Citation Index. Preprints reporting research funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health are separately indexed in PubMed under NIH public-access requirements — but general medRxiv posting alone does not confer PubMed indexing, and medRxiv is not itself a journal with an impact factor.

    Citation practice already reflects this ambiguity in the literature. A 2022 peer-reviewed study published via PubMed Central found that, among 205 COVID-19 research articles published in four major medical journals in 2020, 60 articles — 29.3% — cited at least one medRxiv preprint, and a meaningful share of those citations pointed to a version that had since been superseded by a peer-reviewed publication elsewhere. That gap between what was cited and what was current is precisely the reputational risk research offices need to manage.

    What misinformation risks come from premature clinical findings?

    The pandemic demonstrated the two-edged nature of clinical preprints. medRxiv and bioRxiv were, in the words of researchers tracking the period, major sources for the rapid dissemination of COVID-19 research — a genuine public-health benefit when speed mattered. But the same speed let unreviewed clinical claims reach journalists, policymakers and the public before methodological flaws could be caught, corrected or retracted.

    • Findings can change materially between preprint and peer-reviewed publication — in titles, data or conclusions.
    • Small, uncontrolled or statistically underpowered clinical studies can circulate as if settled, particularly when picked up by non-specialist media.
    • Preprints are citable and DOI-bearing, which can lend an unwarranted appearance of permanence to findings that were never independently verified.

    This is why medRxiv’s disclaimer is not boilerplate: it is the archive’s primary defence against exactly the misuse pattern institutions most need to guard against — a preliminary clinical finding treated as established fact.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is medRxiv trustworthy?

    medRxiv is trustworthy as an archive, run by credible non-profit institutions with documented screening for plagiarism, legitimacy and health-risk content. It is not trustworthy as a source of validated clinical conclusions, because no submission is peer reviewed before it is posted.

    Who owns medRxiv?

    medRxiv was founded in 2019 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Yale University and BMJ. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory operated the site until 11 March 2025, when ownership transferred to openRxiv, a newly formed non-profit dedicated to running both medRxiv and bioRxiv independently.

    Is medRxiv peer-reviewed?

    No. medRxiv preprints are screened, not peer reviewed. Screening checks for plagiarism, non-scientific content and material that could pose a health risk; it does not evaluate methodology, statistical validity or the soundness of a paper’s conclusions the way journal peer review does.

    Is a preprint a reliable source?

    A preprint can be a useful early indicator but is not a finished, validated source. Readers should treat preprint findings as provisional, check whether a peer-reviewed version now exists, and avoid citing preprints as if their conclusions were already established.

    What this means for research offices

    Research offices, communications teams and institutional leaders engaging with medRxiv content should build the following into standard practice:

    • Check publication status before external use. Search for a peer-reviewed version before citing, quoting or promoting a medRxiv finding externally.
    • Retain the disclaimer in any repost. If a preprint is shared via institutional channels, carry medRxiv’s own caution alongside it, not a paraphrased or softened version.
    • Brief media-facing staff explicitly. Journalists and public-affairs teams should be told, in advance, that a medRxiv posting is not equivalent to journal publication.
    • Track the DOI, not just the PDF. medRxiv assigns a persistent DOI to each version, which allows an institution to monitor whether a later, revised or peer-reviewed version supersedes the one initially shared.

    Conclusion: a legitimate archive, not a clinical authority

    medRxiv is reputable in the narrow, correct sense of that word: it is a legitimate, non-profit, well-governed repository operated by credible academic and publishing institutions, with a documented screening process and broad indexing across scholarly databases. It is not, and does not claim to be, a peer-reviewed journal, and its content should never be treated as clinical guidance. The distinction between “reputable archive” and “validated clinical evidence” is the single fact every research office, journalist and clinician needs to carry away from any encounter with a medRxiv preprint.

    For related terminology and role definitions used across the scholarly-communication ecosystem, see the CASRAI Dictionary.