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archive, not as a substitute for peer review: every preprint carries an explicit warning that it has not been certified by peer review and must not be used to guide clinical practice.
medRxiv is defined by its own operators as an online repository for preprints — complete but unpublished manuscripts — in medicine, clinical research and related health sciences, distributed free of charge before formal peer review.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?
- How does medRxiv’s screening differ from bioRxiv’s?
- Is medRxiv peer reviewed, and is it indexed in PubMed?
- What misinformation risks come from premature clinical findings?
- Frequently asked questions
- What this means for research offices
- Conclusion: a legitimate archive, not a clinical authority
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.