CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: medical preprint server

  • 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.

  • Preprint Servers List by Discipline: 2026 Guide

    The right preprint server depends entirely on discipline: bioRxiv and medRxiv serve biomedicine, arXiv still dominates physics, mathematics and computer science, TechRxiv and engrXiv cover engineering, PsyArXiv leads psychology, and Preprints.org is one of the few platforms that formally accepts review articles alongside original research. This preprint servers list compares scope, governance, screening rules and 2026 policy changes across each field, so researchers and research offices can match a manuscript to the right platform rather than defaulting to the best-known name.

    A preprint server is an online repository where researchers deposit a complete but not-yet-peer-reviewed manuscript so it becomes citable and publicly readable before formal journal publication. Coverage, screening rigour and accepted article types vary sharply by field, which is why a single “best preprint server” answer is misleading.

    What is a preprint server, and why does discipline matter?

    A preprint server is a repository that posts a complete scholarly manuscript before it has undergone formal peer review, giving it a timestamp, a DOI and open readability. Screening is typically limited to checking that a submission is genuinely scholarly, complete and does not pose a public-health or safety risk — it is not equivalent to peer review.

    Disciplines differ in what they will screen for and what article types they will accept. A biology preprint about a novel protein structure and a psychology preprint reporting a null replication result face entirely different moderation standards, which is why choosing the correct preprint server list entry for your field matters more than choosing the largest or most famous platform.

    Which preprint server should biomedical and clinical researchers use?

    Biomedicine is served by two related but distinct platforms, both operated by openRxiv, the nonprofit spun out of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. bioRxiv covers basic life-sciences research, while medRxiv — described on its own site as “the preprint server for Health Sciences” — is reserved for clinical, epidemiological and public-health manuscripts and applies stricter screening because its content can influence clinical practice.

    • A manuscript cannot be posted to both bioRxiv and medRxiv simultaneously.
    • medRxiv states plainly in its FAQ that “there is no fee to submit manuscripts.”
    • medRxiv screening includes clinicians who check for content that could mislead patients or clinical decision-making.

    Which preprint server leads for physics, mathematics and computer science?

    arXiv, founded in 1991 and hosting more than a million articles, remains the dominant server for physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, statistics and quantitative finance. Its moderation relies on volunteer subject-area moderators rather than paid editorial staff.

    Two 2026 developments matter for anyone comparing arXiv to newer platforms. First, arXiv formally declared operational independence from Cornell University in March 2026, a governance shift reported by Science that separates its stewardship from a single host institution. Second, arXiv tightened its new-author policy: as of January 2026, first-time submitters in all categories need either an institutional email address plus a prior publication record on arXiv, or a personal endorsement from an established arXiv author — and in computer science categories specifically, review articles and position papers must already be accepted by a recognised journal or conference before they can be posted.

    Which preprint servers cover engineering and psychology?

    Engineering does not have a single dominant server in the way physics or biology do. TechRxiv, backed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and engrXiv, supported by the Center for Open Science, both accept a broad range of engineering and technology manuscripts, alongside arXiv’s own electrical-engineering and systems-science categories.

    PsyArXiv, hosted on the Open Science Framework and managed by the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science, is the closest thing psychology has to a discipline-wide default. It moderates submissions for scholarly relevance and, in 2026, moved to stricter verification of authors’ publication records for certain submission types, alongside its existing encouragement of preregistration and data-availability statements.

    Server Primary discipline Governing body Accepts review articles Notable 2026 development
    bioRxiv Biology / life sciences openRxiv (nonprofit) Not as a standalone article type —
    medRxiv Medicine / health sciences openRxiv (nonprofit) No No submission fee (confirmed in FAQ)
    arXiv Physics, maths, CS, stats Independent nonprofit (formerly Cornell-hosted) Restricted; CS reviews need prior journal/conference acceptance Declared independence from Cornell, March 2026
    TechRxiv Engineering & technology IEEE Yes —
    engrXiv Engineering sciences Center for Open Science Yes —
    PsyArXiv Psychology Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science / OSF Yes Stricter author-verification moderation, 2026
    Preprints.org Multidisciplinary MDPI Yes — explicit “Review” article type Passed 124,000+ hosted preprints

    Which preprint server accepts review articles — Preprints.org vs arXiv?

    This is where discipline-agnostic platforms diverge sharply from field-specific ones. Preprints.org, governed by MDPI and hosting over 124,000 preprints, explicitly lists “Review” as one of its recognised submission types alongside original articles, communications and data descriptors — making it one of the more accommodating multidisciplinary choices for authors of literature reviews and systematic reviews.

    arXiv, by contrast, treats review and position papers as a special case rather than a default article type: in its computer science categories, such papers must already have been accepted by a recognised journal or conference before arXiv will host them. bioRxiv similarly does not treat “review article” as a standard submission category — its FAQ describes comment-based peer discussion, not narrative reviews, as the mechanism for post-publication critique.

    For authors specifically searching for where to deposit a review manuscript, this is a genuine and under-reported distinction: Preprints.org and general-purpose repositories such as SSRN or Research Square are structurally more open to review articles than the flagship subject-specific servers.

    Frequently asked questions

    What is a preprint server?

    A preprint server is an online repository where researchers deposit a complete, unpublished manuscript before peer review, so it receives a timestamp, a citable DOI and open access. It performs basic scholarly and safety screening but does not certify the findings the way peer review does.

    Is medRxiv free to use?

    Yes. medRxiv’s own FAQ states there is no fee to submit manuscripts. Authors do not pay to post, and readers access preprints without a paywall, consistent with its role as an open, nonprofit health-sciences repository operated by openRxiv.

    Does bioRxiv accept review papers?

    Not as a standard submission type. bioRxiv is built around original research reports, and its FAQ describes structured comments — not narrative or systematic review articles — as its mechanism for post-posting critique. Authors of review manuscripts typically use Preprints.org or a discipline-general server instead.

    What are the disadvantages of preprints?

    Preprints have not been peer-reviewed, so findings can be incomplete, later revised, or misreported by media before formal validation. Negative public comments on a preprint may also influence subsequent peer review, and some journals still restrict submissions that overlap heavily with an already-public preprint.

    Implications for research administrators and institutions

    Research offices advising authors on open-access compliance need a discipline-aware view, not a single institutional default. A biomedical clinical trial preprint belongs on medRxiv given its clinician screening; a systematic review destined for a multidisciplinary audience is far more likely to be accepted on Preprints.org than on arXiv or bioRxiv. Institutions building preprint guidance pages should map manuscript type and discipline to platform before recommending “post it on arXiv” as a blanket instruction.

    Funders and publishers referencing preprint policy should also note governance changes such as arXiv’s 2026 separation from Cornell, since institutional affiliation and stewardship arrangements can affect long-term archiving guarantees that research administrators rely on when advising on data-management and preservation plans.

    Conclusion: choosing by discipline, not by brand

    There is no universal “best” preprint server. bioRxiv and medRxiv fit biomedicine, arXiv still defines physics, mathematics and computer science despite tightened 2026 submission rules, TechRxiv and engrXiv split the engineering space, PsyArXiv anchors psychology, and Preprints.org stands out as the multidisciplinary option most open to review articles. Authors and research offices get the best outcome by treating this preprint servers list as a field-by-field decision, not a single default choice.

  • How to Choose a Preprint Server: A Framework

    Choosing a preprint server is a decision about five factors, not one: screening policy, licensing terms, persistent-identifier assignment, indexing reach, and journal-submission integration. A preprint server is an online repository that makes a research manuscript publicly available before formal peer review, typically assigning a DOI and an open licence so the work is citable immediately. Matching those five factors to a discipline, a funder mandate, and a target journal’s policy is what separates a defensible institutional recommendation from “just use bioRxiv.”

    What is a preprint server?

    A preprint server is a repository, usually free to use, that publishes a manuscript version before it has completed formal peer review. Unlike a personal website or an institutional repository, a genuine preprint server performs basic screening, assigns a persistent identifier, and makes the work discoverable through indexing services and search engines.

    The category now spans general-purpose infrastructure (arXiv, OSF Preprints), discipline-specific platforms (bioRxiv, medRxiv, ChemRxiv, PsyArXiv, SocArXiv), and publisher-operated services (SSRN, Research Square). Each applies a different mix of screening, licensing, and indexing — which is exactly why a single “best” answer does not exist.

    Which five criteria actually differentiate preprint servers?

    Most comparisons stop at subject scope. A more useful framework adds four operational criteria that determine whether a preprint actually functions as a citable, fundable, publishable output.

    • Screening policy. Every reputable server checks for plagiarism, offensive or non-scientific content, and (for health research) potential public-harm risk. medRxiv applies the strictest clinical-harm review of the major platforms, reflecting the direct patient-facing risk of unreviewed medical claims.
    • Licensing. Authors typically retain copyright but must grant a distribution licence. Options range from CC0 and CC BY through to CC BY-NC-ND or a non-exclusive posting licence with no reuse rights. cOAlition S’s Plan S rights-retention strategy specifically favours CC BY preprints, so funder compliance can hinge on this single field.
    • Persistent-identifier assignment. A DOI — usually registered through DataCite or Crossref — is what makes a preprint permanently citable and trackable through Altmetric and citation indexes. Not every platform assigned DOIs from launch; arXiv began registering DOIs for new submissions via DataCite only in 2022, decades after its 1991 founding at Cornell University.
    • Indexing and discoverability. Google Scholar indexes most major servers, but subject-specific indexing varies: medRxiv and bioRxiv preprints are only selectively surfaced in PubMed and PubMed Central, while SSRN content feeds RePEc for economics.
    • Journal-submission integration. Direct-transfer tools — such as bioRxiv’s “B2J” (bioRxiv-to-journal) pipeline — let authors submit straight from the preprint record, cutting duplicate uploads and formatting work.

    How do the major preprint servers compare?

    The table below summarises governance, screening, and identifier practice across the platforms institutions most commonly encounter. Details change; always confirm current policy on the platform itself before advising a researcher.

    Server Primary field Governance Screening Licence options PID / indexing
    arXiv Physics, maths, CS, quantitative biology Cornell University Library (non-profit); founded 1991 Moderator scope/format check Non-exclusive licence or CC BY/CC BY-NC-SA DataCite DOI (since 2022); Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar
    bioRxiv Biology, life sciences openRxiv, an independent non-profit launched in 2024 to steward bioRxiv and medRxiv Staff/advisor plagiarism and ethics check CC BY, CC BY-NC, CC BY-ND, or no reuse DOI on posting; Google Scholar, selective PubMed Central
    medRxiv Health and clinical sciences openRxiv, with BMJ and Yale as founding partners; launched 2019 Additional clinical-harm review beyond bioRxiv’s checks CC BY, CC BY-NC, CC BY-ND, or no reuse DOI on posting; explicit “not for clinical guidance” disclaimer
    SSRN Social sciences, economics, law Elsevier (for-profit; acquired 2016) Light editorial review Author retains copyright under SSRN’s posting terms Unique SSRN ID; feeds RePEc, Google Scholar
    ChemRxiv Chemistry Operated with the American Chemical Society and partner chemistry societies Technical and ethics moderation CC BY, CC BY-NC, CC0 DataCite DOI; indexed by CAS, Google Scholar
    Research Square Multidisciplinary; “In Review” journal integration For-profit, partnered with Springer Nature Basic format/ethics check CC BY and other CC variants DOI on posting; linked directly to journal submission systems
    Preprints.org Multidisciplinary Operated by MDPI Editorial screening, typically within days CC BY by default DOI via Crossref; Google Scholar indexed

    Which preprint server fits your discipline?

    Discipline norms still drive the first cut of any decision. Physicists, mathematicians, and computer scientists default to arXiv because that is where the citation graph and community feedback already live. Life scientists post to bioRxiv, and clinical researchers use medRxiv precisely because of its stricter harm-review layer. Economists, legal scholars, and business researchers rely on SSRN’s established readership, while chemists increasingly use ChemRxiv because of its direct society backing.

    Researchers working across disciplines, or without an obvious subject-specific home, should consider general-purpose infrastructure such as OSF Preprints or a multidisciplinary commercial platform such as Preprints.org — provided the licensing and screening terms still meet funder requirements.

    What should research offices check before recommending a server?

    Research-administration and library staff advising faculty need a repeatable checklist, not a single favourite platform:

    1. Does the target journal’s policy permit prior posting on this specific server? The ICMJE Recommendations state that posting a preprint does not constitute prior publication for most biomedical journals, but individual journal policies can still vary.
    2. Does the licence offered satisfy the researcher’s funder mandate — for example, UKRI’s or cOAlition S’s preference for CC BY on outputs arising from funded grants?
    3. Will the platform assign a DOI immediately, and is that DOI registered with DataCite or Crossref for downstream citation tracking?
    4. Is the server listed in a recognised directory — such as COAR’s Directory of Open Access Preprint Repositories or the ASAPbio preprint server list — that documents its screening and governance practices?
    5. Does the platform provide version control that clearly links a preprint to its eventual peer-reviewed publication?

    COPE guidance reinforces that editors and authors should treat preprint disclosure transparently in submission and review workflows, which makes documented screening and licensing practice — not brand recognition — the correct basis for an institutional recommendation.

    Common questions about preprint servers

    What is a preprint server?

    A preprint server is a repository that publishes a research manuscript before formal peer review, applying basic screening, assigning a persistent identifier such as a DOI, and making the work openly discoverable. It differs from a personal or institutional webpage by offering structured metadata, licensing, and indexing.

    What are the disadvantages of preprints?

    Unreviewed findings can be misreported by media before validation, negative public comments can occur before formal review, and posting adds an extra step to the publication timeline. In clinical fields, this is why medRxiv carries an explicit disclaimer against using preprints to guide clinical practice.

    Which is the best preprint server?

    There is no single best server — the right choice depends on discipline, target-journal policy, funder licensing requirements, and whether journal-submission integration matters. arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, ChemRxiv, and SSRN each dominate a different subject area rather than competing directly.

    How does a preprint differ from peer review?

    A preprint has passed only basic screening for plagiarism and scope, while peer review involves independent experts formally assessing methodology, evidence, and conclusions. Peer review certifies a paper for a journal; a preprint server does not — it only makes a manuscript public and citable ahead of that certification.

    What this means for researchers and institutions

    Preprint infrastructure is consolidating around named, accountable stewardship rather than informal hosting. openRxiv’s 2024 launch as an independent non-profit overseeing bioRxiv and medRxiv is a governance signal research offices should track, alongside continuing publisher involvement through SSRN (Elsevier) and Research Square (Springer Nature). Neither model is inherently wrong, but each carries different long-term sustainability and independence trade-offs that belong in any institutional recommendation, not just in the author’s personal choice.

    For research administrators, the practical output of this framework is a short internal guidance note: name the approved server per discipline, confirm its licence matches funder mandates, and confirm its DOI and indexing practice before telling researchers where to post. That single document does more to reduce compliance risk than any general preprint policy statement.

    For related definitions and standards context, see the CASRAI Dictionary and guidance for research administration teams building institutional open-research policy.