Is medRxiv a journal? No — medRxiv is a preprint server, not a journal. It distributes unpublished, unreviewed manuscripts in the medical and clinical sciences, carries no ISSN in the traditional journal sense, and has no Journal Impact Factor because, as medRxiv’s own FAQ states, it “is not a journal.” Preprints are indexed by Crossref, Google Scholar and Europe PubMed Central, and — only when NIH-funded — by PubMed. MEDLINE, the National Library of Medicine’s flagship index, does not index medRxiv at all.
medRxiv is an online disciplinary repository, launched in June 2019 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), Yale University and BMJ, for posting complete but unpublished manuscripts — preprints — across all disciplines of the health sciences. For clinical researchers, institutional librarians and research administrators used to journals with ISSNs, impact factors and formal peer review, medRxiv’s status as a repository rather than a publication venue has real practical consequences for citation, tenure review and evidence appraisal.
- What is medRxiv, and why isn’t it a journal?
- Does medRxiv have an ISSN or Impact Factor?
- Is medRxiv indexed in PubMed, MEDLINE or Crossref?
- medRxiv vs bioRxiv: what’s the difference?
- Common questions about citing and trusting medRxiv
- Implications for institutions, authors and reviewers
What is medRxiv, and why isn’t it a journal?
medRxiv is a free online archive and distribution server for complete but unpublished manuscripts in medicine, clinical research and related health sciences. It was founded in June 2019 by John Inglis and Richard Sever of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Theodora Bloom and Claire Rawlinson of BMJ, and Joseph Ross and Harlan Krumholz of Yale University. On 11 March 2025, ownership transferred from CSHL to openRxiv, a newly formed non-profit dedicated to running both bioRxiv and medRxiv.
A journal certifies manuscripts through editorial peer review before publication. medRxiv does not. Submissions undergo only a basic screening for plagiarism, non-scientific content and potential public-health harm — not scientific peer review. medRxiv’s own About page is explicit: it “is a non-profit community resource and is not linked to any one publisher or journal,” and articles “are not peer-reviewed, edited, or typeset before” posting. As of December 2024, the server held more than 61,000 posted preprints.
Does medRxiv have an ISSN or Impact Factor?
medRxiv does not carry a journal-style ISSN, and neither its About page nor its Submission Guide references one. An International Standard Serial Number is issued to continuing serial titles — the defining feature of a journal — whereas medRxiv operates as a repository of discrete, individually DOI-registered manuscripts rather than a numbered serial publication.
On the Impact Factor question, medRxiv answers its own FAQ without hedging: “What is the Impact Factor of medRxiv? medRxiv is not a journal and so it has no Impact Factor.” Clarivate calculates Journal Impact Factor only for indexed journal titles in the Web of Science Core Collection; a preprint repository is structurally ineligible.
- Each medRxiv preprint receives its own Crossref DOI on posting — this is the correct citation identifier, not an ISSN.
- Authors keep copyright and choose a licence (CC-BY, CC-BY-NC, CC0, or “no reuse without permission”) displayed on every preprint page.
- Preprints cannot be removed once posted; authors may only append a withdrawal statement.
Is medRxiv indexed in PubMed, MEDLINE or Crossref?
Indexing for medRxiv is selective and worth distinguishing carefully, because “indexed somewhere” is not the same as “indexed in MEDLINE.” According to medRxiv’s own FAQ, preprints are indexed by Google and other search engines, Google Scholar, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, Europe PubMed Central, and the Preprint Citation Index within Web of Science. Only preprints reporting NIH-funded research are indexed in PubMed, under a dedicated NIH pilot programme for interim research products.
MEDLINE — the National Library of Medicine’s premier bibliographic database and the subset of PubMed subject to formal journal-selection review — does not index medRxiv at all. This is the single most consequential fact for clinical researchers: a preprint appearing in a PubMed search result (via the NIH pilot) is not thereby MEDLINE-indexed, and should not be described as such in a CV, grant application or systematic-review search strategy.
| Index / database | medRxiv coverage |
|---|---|
| Crossref | Yes — every preprint, via DOI |
| Google Scholar | Yes |
| Europe PubMed Central | Yes |
| Web of Science Preprint Citation Index | Yes |
| PubMed | Only NIH-funded preprints (pilot programme) |
| MEDLINE | No |
medRxiv vs bioRxiv: what’s the difference?
medRxiv and bioRxiv are sister servers, both now operated by openRxiv, but they serve different disciplines and were founded six years apart. bioRxiv launched first, in November 2013, for the biological sciences; medRxiv followed in June 2019, purpose-built for medical and clinical research after CSHL, Yale and BMJ concluded that clinical preprints needed dedicated screening — including trial-registration and ethics-oversight checks not required on bioRxiv.
| Feature | medRxiv | bioRxiv |
|---|---|---|
| Launched | June 2019 | November 2013 |
| Scope | Medicine, clinical and health sciences | Biology (non-clinical) |
| Operator | openRxiv (since March 2025) | openRxiv (since March 2025) |
| Peer review | None — screening only | None — screening only |
| Trial registration required | Yes, for clinical trials | Not applicable |
| Journal status / ISSN / Impact Factor | None | None |
Authors cannot post the same manuscript to both servers simultaneously — cross-posting results in withdrawal — and medRxiv will redirect submissions better suited to bioRxiv’s scope during screening.
Common questions about citing and trusting medRxiv
Is medRxiv a credible source?
medRxiv preprints undergo basic screening for plagiarism, ethical oversight and clinical-trial registration, but not peer review. They can be a credible early signal of ongoing research, but every preprint carries an explicit warning that it “should not be relied on to guide clinical practice” until formally published.
Is medRxiv peer-reviewed?
No. medRxiv states plainly that submissions are “not certified by scientific peer review, edited, or typeset before being posted online.” Some preprints later display journal peer reviews via the site’s dashboard, but that review is external to medRxiv itself.
Is a preprint considered a publication?
A medRxiv preprint is a citable scholarly output with its own DOI, but it is not a “prior publication” that blocks later journal submission — medRxiv preprints may be submitted to a journal at any point before that journal accepts them.
Can I cite a preprint in my paper?
Yes. Scholarly publishing guidance, including from Springer Nature, recommends citing preprints with the DOI and a clear “[Preprint]” label, distinguishing them from peer-reviewed citations in the reference list.
Implications for institutions, authors and reviewers
For research administrators assessing outputs, the practical rule is definitive: treat medRxiv listings as preprints, not journal publications, regardless of how polished the PDF or how many citations a preprint accrues. CVs, promotion dossiers and grant reports should label medRxiv entries “[Preprint]” with the DOI, and systematic-review search strategies should not assume MEDLINE coverage — Europe PubMed Central or Crossref queries are required to capture medRxiv content comprehensively.
More than 144 journals now integrate directly with medRxiv through its medRxiv-to-Journal (M2J) transfer system, including BMJ titles, JAMA Network Open and PLOS Medicine, reflecting growing acceptance of the preprint-to-publication pathway across clinical medicine. That integration accelerates dissemination without changing medRxiv’s underlying status: it remains, by its own definition, a repository — not a journal, not ISSN-bearing, and not a substitute for the peer-reviewed record it feeds into. Clear research administration practice and consistent authorship and contribution standards depend on making that distinction explicit every time a preprint is cited or reported.