CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: medrxiv submission

  • 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.

  • 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 Preprint Server: NIH, Wellcome and Gates Compared

    Funder preprint requirements diverge sharply in 2026: the Gates Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) now mandate deposit on a recognised server such as the preprint server bioRxiv or its sister site medRxiv, the NIH indexes eligible preprints in PubMed Central without treating them as compliance, and Wellcome requires them only in defined public-health-emergency scenarios. Research administrators tracking multi-funder portfolios need a single reference for which rule applies where.

    A preprint server is an open-access repository — such as bioRxiv for biology or medRxiv for health sciences — where researchers post a complete but not-yet-peer-reviewed manuscript for immediate public access. Both platforms are operated by openRxiv, a nonprofit formed in 2025 specifically to run bioRxiv and medRxiv independently of their founding host institution.

    What Is a Preprint Server Like bioRxiv?

    A preprint server is a repository for manuscripts that have not yet completed formal peer review. bioRxiv, co-founded by John Inglis and Richard Sever, launched in November 2013 as a life-sciences equivalent to arXiv. Its companion site, medRxiv, covers health and clinical research and applies additional pre-posting screening because of the sensitivity of medical findings.

    Submissions to both platforms undergo basic scrutiny — plagiarism screening, an appropriateness check, and a safeguarding review — but not peer review itself. Roughly two-thirds of bioRxiv preprints are later published in a peer-reviewed journal, and by early 2026 bioRxiv was recording around four million article downloads a month, according to a Nature analysis of the server’s first 13 years.

    Which Funders Require Preprinting in 2026?

    Funder policy on preprints splits into three tiers: outright mandates, conditional requirements, and pure encouragement. The table below summarises the position of four major research funders as of 2026.

    Funder Preprint requirement Effective date Compliance role
    Gates Foundation Mandatory — deposit before or at journal submission, CC BY licence 1 January 2025 Core requirement of the Open Access Policy
    HHMI Mandatory for HHMI investigators, scholars and Janelia scientists 1 January 2026 Preprint required before journal submission
    Wellcome Trust Required only for research with significant public health implications; encouraged otherwise Ongoing Accepted as a fallback open access route if a fully OA journal or Europe PMC deposit is unavailable
    NIH Not required Preprint Pilot ongoing Discoverability only — does not satisfy the NIH Public Access Policy

    Two funders — Gates and HHMI — now treat preprinting as a compulsory step in the research lifecycle. NIH and Wellcome instead fold preprints into a wider menu of open access routes, which is the detail most other coverage of this topic omits.

    How Does the NIH Preprint Pilot Treat bioRxiv Deposits?

    The NIH Preprint Pilot makes eligible NIH-funded preprints — including bioRxiv and medRxiv deposits — discoverable in PubMed Central and PubMed, tagged clearly as preprints rather than peer-reviewed literature. This is a discoverability mechanism, not a compliance mechanism.

    Posting a preprint does not fulfil the NIH Public Access Policy. Grantees must still deposit the final, accepted peer-reviewed manuscript in PMC. NIH does, however, permit researchers to cite preprints in grant applications and progress reports, which gives early findings some formal standing without changing the underlying compliance obligation.

    Does Wellcome Require or Just Encourage Preprints?

    Wellcome strongly encourages preprinting across its funded portfolio and requires it specifically where a disease outbreak or comparable public health emergency makes rapid sharing a priority. Outside those defined scenarios, preprinting is not compulsory.

    Wellcome’s primary open access compliance routes are publication in a fully open access journal or deposit of the author’s accepted manuscript in Europe PMC. A CC BY-licensed preprint is accepted as a valid compliance route only if neither of those primary routes is available — a fallback position, not a default requirement.

    What Changed When bioRxiv and medRxiv Became openRxiv?

    bioRxiv and medRxiv were hosted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) from launch until 11 March 2025, when ownership transferred to openRxiv, a newly formed nonprofit dedicated solely to running the two preprint servers. This is a provenance detail funder-policy roundups routinely miss, and it matters for research administrators: openRxiv, not CSHL, is now the governing body whose terms of use and licensing options apply to deposits made under Gates, HHMI, Wellcome and NIH-linked research.

    The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative has funded platform development on both sites since 2017, part of a broader pattern of philanthropic infrastructure investment that runs parallel to — and distinct from — the funder mandates covered above.

    Common Questions About bioRxiv and Preprint Servers

    Is bioRxiv a preprint server?

    Yes. bioRxiv is an open-access preprint server for the biological sciences, hosting complete but not-yet-peer-reviewed manuscripts. It does not conduct peer review itself, though submissions undergo basic screening and reviews from journals or platforms such as Review Commons may be posted alongside preprints.

    Is it free to publish on bioRxiv?

    Yes. Authors register without charge and there is no fee to deposit a manuscript on bioRxiv or medRxiv. This zero-cost deposit model is one reason funders increasingly treat preprinting as a low-friction first step toward full open access compliance.

    What is a preprint server?

    A preprint server is an online repository where researchers post manuscripts before or during formal peer review, giving the wider research community immediate access to findings. bioRxiv and medRxiv are the leading discipline-specific examples in the life and health sciences.

    What are the disadvantages of preprints?

    Preprints add an extra step to the publishing process, are not peer-reviewed at the point of posting, and can attract premature media coverage or public comment before findings are validated. Some journals and funders still weigh these risks against the benefit of faster dissemination.

    What This Means for Institutions and Researchers

    Research administrators managing grants across multiple funders now need to track preprint policy at the individual-funder level rather than assuming a single institutional rule applies. A grantee funded jointly by Gates and NIH, for example, must preprint to satisfy Gates while still separately depositing the accepted manuscript in PMC for NIH.

    • Confirm licence requirements before deposit — Gates and HHMI specify CC BY, which is not the default licence offered on every server.
    • Do not treat NIH Preprint Pilot indexing as equivalent to Public Access Policy compliance — the two are separate obligations.
    • Check Wellcome’s public-health-emergency criteria before assuming preprinting is optional on a given grant.
    • Record the openRxiv terms of use in grant files, since bioRxiv and medRxiv are no longer governed by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

    The Direction of Travel for Funder Preprint Policy

    The trend across 2025 and 2026 runs firmly toward mandatory preprinting among the largest philanthropic funders, while NIH and Wellcome hold a more conditional position rooted in their existing open access frameworks. Institutions should expect more funders to follow the Gates and HHMI model as preprint infrastructure matures under openRxiv’s independent stewardship. Research administration teams that build funder-specific preprint checklists now, rather than applying a single blanket policy, will be better placed as more mandates convert from encouragement to requirement.

    For related definitions and terminology used across research administration and open access compliance, see the CASRAI Dictionary and the research administration resource hub.