CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: medrxiv citation

  • medRxiv API: Endpoints, Limits and Use Cases

    The medRxiv API is a free, public REST interface — operated by openRxiv, the non-profit behind medRxiv and bioRxiv — that returns structured JSON or XML metadata for health-sciences preprints: titles, authors, abstracts, DOIs, dates, licences and subject categories. Developers query it by date range, by a fixed number of recent posts, or by a single DOI, with results paginated in batches of 100 via a cursor parameter. There is no API key requirement and no separate registration step.

    A preprint, in this context, is a complete but not-yet-peer-reviewed manuscript; the medRxiv API is the machine-readable route to the metadata that describes it, distinct from the full-text PDF/XML mining pipeline hosted separately on Amazon S3.

    What is the medRxiv API?

    The medRxiv API is a lightweight metadata service, not a search engine or a full-text repository. It shares its underlying infrastructure with the bioRxiv API — both are addressable via api.biorxiv.org or the medRxiv-branded mirror at api.medrxiv.org — because both preprint servers are co-managed by the same non-profit.

    medRxiv and bioRxiv are operated by openRxiv, a non-profit founded by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), Yale University and BMJ, and funded by contributions including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Imperial College London and Stanford University. This governance detail matters for developers assessing service continuity: the API is not a commercial product with an SLA, but a grant- and institution-funded public good, published under the same operational umbrella that screens and posts the preprints themselves.

    medRxiv API endpoints explained

    There are two distinct endpoint families. Confusing them is the most common integration mistake developers make, since both accept the same server, interval and cursor parameters but return different content.

    Endpoint Purpose Format
    api.medrxiv.org/details/[server]/[interval]/[cursor]/[format] Preprint metadata — title, authors, abstract, DOI, posting date, category, licence json or xml
    api.medrxiv.org/details/[server]/[DOI]/na/[format] Single-manuscript lookup by DOI json or xml
    api.biorxiv.org/pubs/[server]/[interval]/[cursor] Published-version linkage — which journal, when, and the published DOI json

    server takes the value medrxiv or biorxiv. interval accepts three forms: two YYYY-MM-DD dates separated by a slash; a plain number for the N most recent posts; or a number suffixed d for the most recent N days. cursor defaults to 0 and advances in steps of 100, matching the fixed page size medRxiv documents for both endpoint families.

    A working example: https://api.medrxiv.org/details/medrxiv/2020-03-21/2020-03-24/45 returns up to 100 medRxiv records posted in that window, starting from the 45th result. Each response includes a messages array reporting the cursor position and total count, which developers should use to drive pagination rather than hard-coding offsets.

    Rate limits, formats and bulk access

    medRxiv does not publish a numeric requests-per-second quota for the metadata API. In practice, the service is engineered around cursor-based pagination capped at 100 records per call, which itself throttles realistic usage patterns without a documented rate-limit header. Developers building high-volume harvesters should paginate sequentially rather than firing parallel requests, since the API is a shared public resource funded by academic and philanthropic contributions, not a commercially provisioned endpoint.

    For anything beyond metadata — full-text PDF and XML mining at scale — medRxiv explicitly separates that workload onto a dedicated Amazon S3 requester-pays bucket (s3://medrxiv-src-monthly), rather than serving it through the JSON API. This is a deliberate architectural boundary: the metadata API is for discovery and linkage, S3 is for bulk text and data mining (TDM), and mixing the two workloads against the wrong endpoint is the most common cause of developer friction.

    • Metadata endpoints return JSON (default) or XML in OAI-PMH format.
    • Bulk full-text files are delivered monthly as MECA-format zip packages containing manifest XML, full-text XML and PDF.
    • All preprints are permanently archived at Portico, independent of the live API.

    Practical use cases for developers

    The API’s realistic use cases cluster around discovery, linkage and bibliometrics rather than full-text analysis:

    • Systematic review screening — pulling all preprints in a date range and subject category to feed a title/abstract screening pipeline before formal database searches.
    • Publication-linkage tracking — using the /pubs/ endpoint to detect when a tracked preprint has since been formally published, and in which journal.
    • Institutional repository harvesting — research offices ingesting metadata for preprints affiliated with their institution to populate internal dashboards.
    • Bibliometric and disease-surveillance research — reproducing analyses of preprinting velocity by subject category, a pattern widely used during infectious-disease outbreaks.

    A minimal Python request against the details endpoint needs no authentication:

    import requests

url = "https://api.medrxiv.org/details/medrxiv/10d/0/json"
resp = requests.get(url, timeout=30)
data = resp.json()
print(data["messages"][0]["total"], "preprints in the last 10 days")

    The R package medrxivr (rOpenSci) wraps the same endpoints for R users who prefer not to handle pagination and JSON parsing directly.

    Answer-first Q&A

    Does medRxiv have a public API?

    Yes. medRxiv provides a free, unrestricted public API at api.medrxiv.org and api.biorxiv.org, returning JSON or XML preprint metadata by date range, recent-post count, or DOI. No API key or account is required, and the same infrastructure also serves bioRxiv metadata.

    What is the difference between the bioRxiv and medRxiv APIs?

    They are the same API distinguished only by a server parameter set to medrxiv or biorxiv. Both preprint servers are co-managed by openRxiv and share identical endpoint syntax, pagination and response schemas, though each server applies separate scope and screening policies to submissions.

    How do I cite a medRxiv preprint retrieved via the API?

    Cite the preprint by its DOI, exactly as medRxiv’s own guidance specifies: author names, year, title, and “medRxiv doi: 10.1101/…”. For a specific revision, append the version-specific URL, since each version keeps the same DOI but a distinct version suffix in its address.

    Does medRxiv have an Impact Factor?

    No. medRxiv’s own FAQ states plainly: “medRxiv is not a journal and so it has no Impact Factor.” Metadata pulled via the API includes posting dates, categories and licences, but never a journal-style Impact Factor field, because none exists for preprints on the server.

    Implications and what’s next

    For institutions and research administration offices, the practical implication is that medRxiv metadata is genuinely free to harvest at scale for compliance dashboards, preprint-to-publication tracking, and REF-style output monitoring — no licensing negotiation is required, unlike many commercial bibliographic APIs. The trade-off is that developers must build their own resilience: there is no documented rate-limit contract, no SLA, and no formal versioning notice channel beyond the help pages themselves.

    The clearest forward risk is architectural drift rather than access restriction: because the API is maintained by a philanthropically funded non-profit rather than a commercial vendor, integrations should be built defensively — using the documented cursor pagination rather than assumptions about page size, and routing bulk text-mining workloads to the S3 bucket rather than the JSON endpoints, which is where undocumented load is most likely to cause friction for openRxiv’s infrastructure over time.

  • How to Cite bioRxiv: APA, Vancouver, EndNote

    How to cite bioRxiv in a reference list is straightforward once you know the rule: cite the preprint’s DOI, not a URL alone, mark it explicitly as unreviewed, and — if the content you consulted may differ from the current version — reference the specific version number. bioRxiv preprints receive a DOI (prefix 10.1101/) on posting and are, in the platform’s own words, “citable and part of the scientific record”, but they are not equivalent to a peer-reviewed journal article and most style guides require a disclaimer to say so.

    A preprint is a complete but not-yet-peer-reviewed manuscript posted to an open server — bioRxiv for biology, medRxiv for health sciences — so that findings can be shared, discussed and built upon before formal journal certification. This guide sets out the exact APA and Vancouver formats, how to handle multiple versions, journal-specific quirks, and how to configure EndNote and Zotero so the “not peer reviewed” flag survives into your final manuscript.

    What counts as a citable bioRxiv or medRxiv preprint?

    Every manuscript accepted onto bioRxiv or medRxiv is assigned a DOI at the point of posting, and, per bioRxiv’s own FAQ, “preprints deposited in bioRxiv should be cited using their digital object identifier (DOI)”. The platform is explicit that manuscripts “cannot be removed” once posted, because the DOI is indexed by Crossref, Google Scholar, Europe PMC and the Preprint Citation Index in Web of Science — meaning the preprint is a permanent, citable object regardless of whether it is later published in a journal.

    DOI structure changed part-way through bioRxiv’s history: DOIs assigned before 11 December 2019 use a short six-digit suffix (e.g. 10.1101/123456), while DOIs assigned from that date onward use a longer, date-based suffix (e.g. 10.1101/2023.07.03.123456). medRxiv, co-managed with bioRxiv by the non-profit openRxiv, uses the same 10.1101/ DOI prefix. Neither platform has an Impact Factor, because neither is a journal.

    How do you cite bioRxiv in APA style?

    APA 7th edition treats a preprint as an informally published work, so the citation must name the repository and flag the manuscript’s status in square brackets. There is no separate APA “preprint” reference category — you build it from the general work template.

    Element APA 7th edition rule
    Author Surname, Initials — as listed on the preprint
    Year Year of posting, in parentheses
    Title Italicised, sentence case
    Status flag [Preprint] in square brackets after the title
    Source Repository name (bioRxiv or medRxiv)
    Locator https://doi.org/10.1101/...

    Worked example, adapted from bioRxiv’s official citation model:

    Author, A. N., & Author, B. T. (2013). My article title [Preprint]. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.11.123456

    In-text citation follows the standard author-date form: (Author & Author, 2013). Do not cite the preprint’s landing-page URL in place of the DOI — the DOI is the stable, version-agnostic locator that Crossref and journal reference-checkers expect.

    How do you cite bioRxiv in Vancouver style?

    Vancouver style, the dominant convention in biomedical journals, follows National Library of Medicine (NLM) guidance for citing preprints, which explicitly reserves a field for the version number and a bracketed “[Preprint]” tag immediately after the title.

    Author FM, Author SM. Title of preprint. Version 2. bioRxiv [Preprint]. 2023 Jul 3 [cited 2026 Jul 3]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.03.123456

    In-text citation is numeric, in order of first appearance in the text — for example (1) or a superscript ¹. Journals that follow ICMJE’s Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work permit preprints in the reference list on the same condition APA and NLM apply: the entry must make unambiguous that the work has not been peer-reviewed.

    How do you cite a specific preprint version?

    Unlike a journal article, a preprint can be revised multiple times under one unchanging DOI. If the substance of your citation depends on data, figures or conclusions that changed between versions, cite the version you actually used, not just the DOI.

    • bioRxiv’s own convention: append the version-specific URL — e.g. doi: 10.1101/2019.12.11.123456 version 2, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2019.12.11.123456v2.
    • APA: add (Version 2) after the title, before the [Preprint] tag.
    • Vancouver/NLM: insert Version 2. as its own sentence element between the title and the repository name.
    • New manuscript vs revision: a genuine revision keeps the same DOI; a substantially different follow-up manuscript is assigned a new DOI and must be treated as a separate reference.

    If a preprint has since been formally published, cite the published version of record wherever possible — bioRxiv automatically links the published article to the preprint page within roughly two weeks of publication, and most journals require you to switch the citation once that link exists.

    How do you handle bioRxiv and medRxiv in EndNote and Zotero?

    Reference managers diverge sharply on preprint support, which is the step most researchers get wrong even after they have the correct written format.

    Zotero has offered a dedicated Preprint item type since 2019, with discrete fields for Repository, DOI and Archive ID — importing a bioRxiv record via its DOI or the browser connector populates these automatically, and the “not peer reviewed” status is preserved in the item type itself rather than relying on free text.

    EndNote has no equivalent native preprint type in most current libraries. The practical workaround is:

    1. Create the reference as Unpublished Work or Journal Article, whichever your output style maps most cleanly to a preprint field set.
    2. Enter “bioRxiv” or “medRxiv” as the publisher/journal field, and paste the full DOI (not the landing-page URL) into the DOI field.
    3. Add “Preprint, not peer reviewed” to the Notes or Type of Work field so it survives into any custom output style you build.
    4. If you cite a specific version, record it in the Edition or Notes field, since EndNote has no dedicated version field for preprints.

    Whichever manager you use, verify the exported reference against the APA or Vancouver template above before submission — auto-generated preprint references are the most common source of missing DOIs and dropped “[Preprint]” tags in manuscript reference lists.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is it okay to cite bioRxiv?

    Yes. bioRxiv states that manuscripts posted to the server “receive DOIs and thus are citable and part of the scientific record.” Citing is acceptable across most disciplines and funders, provided the reference clearly discloses that the work is a preprint and has not completed peer review.

    Does bioRxiv have a DOI?

    Yes. Every preprint deposited on bioRxiv is assigned a DOI under the 10.1101/ prefix at the point of posting, and this DOI remains stable across revisions of the same manuscript, resolving by default to the latest version.

    Is bioRxiv considered published?

    No. bioRxiv preprints are not formally “published” in the peer-reviewed sense — they have not been certified, edited or typeset by a journal. They are nonetheless a permanent, indexed part of the scientific record and cannot be withdrawn from the server once posted, only marked as withdrawn.

    Can I cite a preprint in my paper?

    Yes, in most journals and grant applications. Guidance aligned with ICMJE recommendations and publisher policy (e.g. Springer Nature) requires the reference to carry a “[Preprint]” note, the DOI, and standard bibliographic details, so readers cannot mistake it for a peer-reviewed source.

    What this means for authors, editors and institutions

    Funders have moved from tolerating preprint citation to actively encouraging it: the US National Institutes of Health states that it “encourages investigators to use interim research products, such as preprints, to speed the dissemination and enhance the rigor of their work,” and NIH-funded preprints are indexed directly in PubMed. That policy signal, combined with Crossref and Europe PMC indexing, means a correctly formatted preprint citation is no longer a stylistic afterthought — it is a discoverability and compliance requirement.

    Research offices, editors and reference-management teams should standardise on three checks before submission: the DOI (not a bare URL) is present, the cited version matches the version consulted, and the “[Preprint]” disclaimer appears in the visible reference text, not only in a database field. As preprint volume grows, these checks keep a reference list accurate and consistent with the style guide a target journal enforces.

  • bioRxiv Preprint DOI: How Versions Are Cited

    Every bioRxiv and medRxiv preprint receives a single, permanent DOI that stays constant across all revisions — the DOI always resolves to the newest version, and a specific version (v1, v2, v3) is cited by appending the version number to the DOI-based URL, not by requesting a new identifier.

    A bioRxiv preprint DOI is a Crossref-registered digital object identifier assigned to a manuscript once openRxiv’s screening team approves it for posting, and it serves as the manuscript’s permanent citation handle for the life of the record. Understanding how that identifier behaves across revisions — and how it eventually connects to a journal’s version of record — is essential for anyone citing, tracking, or administering preprint outputs.

    What is a bioRxiv preprint DOI?

    A bioRxiv or medRxiv DOI is issued the moment a submission clears openRxiv’s screening process, which bioRxiv’s Submission Guide states typically takes 24–72 hours. The identifier is deposited with Crossref, the DOI registration agency used by both servers, and it is what makes a preprint “citable and part of the scientific record” rather than a private working draft.

    Since December 1, 2025, all newly posted bioRxiv and medRxiv articles use the prefix 10.64898, replacing the legacy 10.1101 prefix used throughout the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) era. According to openRxiv’s own explainer, published November 18, 2025, articles posted before that date keep their existing 10.1101 DOIs unchanged — nothing needs to be re-cited or updated by authors or readers; only new submissions carry the new prefix.

    The DOI suffix is not arbitrary. Since December 11, 2019, it has embedded the date the author approved the submission for posting (e.g., 2026.01.01.123456), which lets a reader estimate an article’s age directly from the citation string, much as a volume and year do for a journal article. DOIs assigned before that date used a simple six-digit suffix instead.

    How do bioRxiv and medRxiv assign DOIs across versions?

    openRxiv assigns exactly one DOI per article, and that single DOI covers every subsequent version. When an author submits a revision, the new version posts under the same DOI; the identifier’s landing page always resolves to the most recent version, while earlier versions remain permanently accessible via the article’s Info/History tab.

    This is a deliberate design choice, not a technical limitation. openRxiv has stated that “opinions differ on whether each version of a preprint should have its own DOI,” and different repositories take different approaches — but for bioRxiv and medRxiv, version-specific DOIs are not issued. A revision is only assigned a brand-new DOI if its content has changed so substantially that the author submits it as an entirely new manuscript rather than a revision.

    Because Crossref registration is not instantaneous, a newly posted preprint’s DOI URL can take up to 24 hours to resolve. During that narrow window, linking directly to the bioRxiv or medRxiv article page — rather than the DOI — is the more reliable option for time-sensitive sharing.

    Attribute Detail
    Current DOI prefix (from 1 Dec 2025) 10.64898
    Legacy DOI prefix (CSHL era, pre-Dec 2025) 10.1101
    Suffix format (post 11 Dec 2019) YYYY.MM.DD.###### — embeds author-approval date
    DOIs per article One; always resolves to the latest version
    Version-specific citation Append version number to the article URL, e.g. …/10.1101/2019.12.11.123456v2
    bioRxiv ISSN (electronic) 2692-8205 (NLM Catalog / ISSN Portal)
    medRxiv launch June 2019, spun off from bioRxiv for clinical and health-science research
    Registration agency Crossref

    How do you cite bioRxiv v1 vs v3 correctly?

    Because a single DOI serves every version, citing “v3” requires more than the bare DOI. bioRxiv’s own FAQ gives the format directly: cite the DOI, then append the version-specific URL if a particular version matters to the claim being made.

    The standard citation format is: Author AN, Author BT. Year. Title. bioRxiv doi: 10.1101/2019.12.11.123456. To pin the citation to version 2 specifically, this becomes: doi: 10.1101/2019.12.11.123456 version 2, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2019.12.11.123456v2. The same logic applies to medRxiv and to articles carrying the newer 10.64898 prefix.

    Version specificity matters most when:

    • A reviewer or reader needs to see exactly what was public at the time a claim was made or a decision was taken
    • An earlier version contained results, figures, or conclusions later revised or retracted
    • A funder, journal, or regulator requires a dated, auditable snapshot of the manuscript (relevant to research administration compliance workflows)

    Most citations across preprint servers are not version-specific — the majority of preprints only ever have a single version — so appending a version tag is the exception, applied only when precision genuinely matters. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) explicitly encourages citing preprints in grant applications, stating in its policy on Reporting Preprints and Other Interim Research Products that it “encourages investigators to use interim research products, such as preprints, to speed the dissemination and enhance the rigor of their work.”

    How does the preprint DOI link to the published journal article?

    When a preprinted manuscript is subsequently accepted by a journal, openRxiv’s matching algorithms detect the connection and update the preprint’s Crossref DOI metadata to point to the journal article’s DOI. This link typically appears within approximately two weeks of formal journal publication, and the corresponding author receives a confirmation request by email.

    This bidirectional metadata relationship is what allows citation trackers, institutional repositories, and CRIS systems to treat the preprint and the published article as related outputs of the same research rather than duplicate records. Ideally the journal’s own DOI record reciprocally references the preprint, though bioRxiv’s FAQ notes this does not always happen in practice — a gap that research administrators should check for when auditing an author’s output list.

    A related, often underappreciated fact: roughly two-thirds of bioRxiv preprints go on to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, according to meta-research published in eLife (Abdill & Blekhman, 2019) — meaning the DOI-linking mechanism is relevant to the majority of postings, not a rare edge case.

    Common questions about bioRxiv and medRxiv DOIs

    Does bioRxiv have a DOI?

    Yes. Every bioRxiv and medRxiv preprint is assigned a DOI registered with Crossref once it clears screening. This makes preprints citable and part of the permanent scientific record, indexed by Google Scholar, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, Europe PMC, and the Preprint Citation Index in Web of Science.

    How do you cite a bioRxiv preprint?

    Cite the author list, posting year, title, and the DOI — for example, “bioRxiv doi: 10.1101/2019.12.11.123456.” To cite a specific version, append the version-specific URL after the DOI, following the format published on bioRxiv’s official FAQ page.

    Is it okay to cite bioRxiv preprints?

    Yes, with a caveat: bioRxiv states plainly that manuscripts “receive DOIs and thus are citable,” but they are not peer-reviewed at the time of posting. Readers and citers should note the preprint status explicitly and check whether a peer-reviewed version now exists before relying on it as a final source.

    Do all preprint versions have their own DOI?

    No. openRxiv assigns one DOI per article, shared by every revision. The DOI resolves to the newest version by default; earlier versions stay accessible through the article’s history tab and are cited by adding a version tag to the URL, not by obtaining a separate identifier.

    Why this matters for research administrators

    For institutions managing CRIS records, REF-style output audits, or funder compliance reporting, the DOI-prefix transition and the single-DOI-per-article model both have practical consequences. Output lists built before December 2025 will show 10.1101 DOIs; anything posted afterward will show 10.64898 — both are equally valid, permanent identifiers, and neither supersedes the other. Automated deduplication or metadata-harvesting scripts that pattern-match on the “10.1101” prefix should be updated to also recognise 10.64898, or they risk silently dropping newly posted preprints from institutional repositories.

    The version-tracking model also has implications for research integrity workflows: because withdrawal notices and corrections are recorded against the same DOI rather than issued as a new identifier, institutions monitoring compliance should check an article’s Info/History tab — not just its DOI — before citing it in a report. As preprints continue to be formally recognised in NIH and UKRI reporting frameworks, treating the DOI as a static citation string, disconnected from its version history, is no longer sufficient practice for accurate scholarly record-keeping.

  • 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.