CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: medrxiv

  • openRxiv Explained: Why bioRxiv and medRxiv Went Independent

    openRxiv is the independent, researcher-led nonprofit that has run bioRxiv and medRxiv since March 2025, replacing Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory’s institutional stewardship with a six-member board, diversified funding, and a mandate to keep both preprint servers free to read and free to post. The spin-off was designed to insulate two of biomedicine’s most-used pieces of open-research infrastructure from dependence on any single institution or funder — a governance question every standards body and infrastructure provider eventually has to answer.

    openRxiv is the independent nonprofit, launched on 11 March 2025, that now stewards the bioRxiv and medRxiv preprint servers on behalf of the global research community, rather than as a programme of a single host institution.

    What is openRxiv, and what does it actually run?

    openRxiv is the organisational and legal home of two preprint servers: bioRxiv, covering life sciences, and medRxiv, covering health and clinical research. Neither server changed its submission process, screening policy, or URL when the transition happened — researchers post to biorxiv.org and medrxiv.org exactly as before.

    What changed is who is accountable for the platforms’ survival. bioRxiv was founded in 2013 at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL); medRxiv followed in 2019 as a joint initiative between CSHL, Yale University, and BMJ. Both grew into the dominant preprint venues for biomedicine, and by 2025 that success had outgrown the administrative capacity of a single laboratory to sustain indefinitely.

    Why did bioRxiv and medRxiv leave Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory?

    CSHL’s own account of the move calls it a “natural evolution,” not a rupture. Bruce Stillman, CSHL’s President and CEO, joined openRxiv’s board rather than severing ties, and co-founders John Inglis and Richard Sever moved with the platforms into the new entity.

    The stated rationale centres on three risks that concentrated stewardship inside one institution:

    • Sustainability risk — a single laboratory’s budget cycle is not designed to guarantee decades of continuity for global research infrastructure.
    • Governance risk — decisions about screening policy, features, and funding priorities benefited from a board drawn from outside CSHL alone.
    • Funder-concentration risk — the platforms needed a structure that could accept diversified funding without any one funder gaining outsized influence.

    openRxiv formally launched as an independent nonprofit on 11 March 2025, with the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI) providing three years of seed funding for the transition, according to openRxiv’s own governance Q&A published that May. In October 2025, arXiv — the physics, mathematics, and computer science preprint server run by Cornell University — joined openRxiv in submitting a joint response to a National Institutes of Health Request for Information on preprints, signalling a wider coalition forming around shared preprint-infrastructure interests, though arXiv itself remains a separate service.

    Who governs openRxiv, and who pays for it?

    openRxiv is governed by a six-member board of directors: Scott Fraser (University of Southern California and the CZI Imaging Institute), Edith Heard (Francis Crick Institute), Jeff Huber (Triatomic Capital), Harlan Krumholz (Yale School of Medicine; medRxiv co-founder), Bruce Stillman (CSHL), and Shirley Tilghman (Princeton University). A separate Scientific and Medical Advisory Board, chaired by John Inglis with medRxiv co-founder Theo Bloom as deputy, advises on content policy.

    The funding question is where most scrutiny has landed, given CZI’s long involvement with both servers before the spin-off:

    Question openRxiv’s public answer (governance Q&A, May 2025)
    How long has CZI funded the servers? Eight years for bioRxiv, four years for medRxiv, plus three years of dedicated seed funding for the openRxiv transition itself.
    Does CZI have editorial or operational control? No. openRxiv states funding agreements carry no stipulations affecting editorial or operational independence.
    How much board influence does CZI hold? One of six directors (Scott Fraser) has a CZI affiliation; the board is not CZI-appointed as a bloc.
    Is openRxiv against traditional peer review? No — openRxiv reports roughly 75% of bioRxiv and medRxiv preprints go on to formal peer-reviewed publication, with direct-submission links to 350 journals.

    openRxiv itself frames the governance model as a direct answer to funder-concentration concerns: the organisation states its mission is to be “governed by and for the research community, not a single funder, founder, or any one stakeholder.” Whether a philanthropic vehicle tied to a single tech-sector family remains structurally sufficient as the largest funder of a nonprofit intended to resist single-funder capture is a debate that predates this specific spin-off and will likely recur as openRxiv pursues its stated goal of diversifying revenue further.

    What is openRxiv Labs, and what launched in June 2026?

    openRxiv Labs launched on 1 June 2026 as a structured experimentation programme sitting on top of the core bioRxiv and medRxiv infrastructure. Rather than running many small tests at once, openRxiv committed to a small number of larger, hypothesis-driven pilots with predefined success metrics and durations, publishing results — including failures — openly on a dedicated Labs blog.

    The first Labs pilot, built with the platform Curvenote, tests an interactive preprint-reading interface layered onto openRxiv’s existing corpus of preprints, figures, and metadata. openRxiv named a broad partner list for the programme, including CZI, CSHL, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, Caltech, CNRS, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, MIT, Stanford, the University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam — underscoring that the funder-diversification effort begun at launch has continued into 2026 rather than stalling after the initial CZI seed grant.

    Answer-first questions people are asking about openRxiv

    Who is the CEO of openRxiv?

    Dr Tracy Teal is openRxiv’s first Chief Executive Officer, appointed on 18 August 2025 after serving as interim COO since the March 2025 launch. She previously led The Carpentries and Dryad, two established open-research infrastructure nonprofits, giving her direct prior experience running community-governed scientific platforms.

    Who owns medRxiv?

    No single institution “owns” medRxiv today. It was founded in 2019 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Yale University, and BMJ, but operational and governance responsibility now sits with openRxiv, the independent nonprofit created specifically to steward it and bioRxiv without institutional or single-funder control.

    Is medRxiv a credible source?

    medRxiv preprints are screened but not peer-reviewed, so they should be cited with that caveat clearly stated. openRxiv reports around 75% of postings eventually complete formal peer review; until then, findings represent unverified claims from qualified researchers, useful for rapid awareness but not equivalent to a published, peer-reviewed article.

    What is openRxiv, in one line?

    openRxiv is the independent 501(c) nonprofit, launched 11 March 2025, that operates bioRxiv and medRxiv under a six-member board and a diversified-funding mandate, replacing their prior status as programmes hosted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

    What the openRxiv spin-off means for research-infrastructure stewardship

    The openRxiv case is a useful reference point for any organisation weighing how to govern shared research infrastructure once it outgrows its founding institution. The pattern — an originating body incubates a tool, the tool becomes essential community infrastructure, and stewardship then transfers to an independent, multi-stakeholder body — is not unique to preprints.

    CASRAI originated the CRediT contributor role taxonomy in 2014. The standard is now stewarded by NISO as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022. That is the same “originator, not owner” pattern openRxiv is now navigating in public: CSHL originated bioRxiv and medRxiv, and stewardship has since passed to a body structured explicitly to prevent any one funder, founder, or institution from controlling research infrastructure the whole field depends on.

    For research administrators and institutional leaders, the practical takeaway is to watch governance structure, not just funding source, when assessing an infrastructure provider’s long-term reliability. A named, multi-institutional board; published funding-independence commitments; and open reporting of pilot outcomes (as with openRxiv Labs) are the concrete signals worth checking — independent of who wrote the first cheque.

  • bioRxiv vs medRxiv vs Research Square: Choosing the Right Preprint Server in 2026

    As preprinting shifts from niche practice to default first step in the publication pipeline, research offices are increasingly asked a deceptively simple question: which server should an author use? The bioRxiv vs medRxiv choice is the one that comes up most often, because the two platforms sit side by side in the life and health sciences yet operate under different screening rules and community expectations. Add Research Square’s multidisciplinary, journal-integrated model into the mix, and the decision has real consequences for timing, discoverability and compliance with funder and publisher policies.

    This is not a trivial administrative detail. With NIH data-sharing enforcement now active, UKRI’s open access policy explicitly recognising preprints as a route to compliance, and cOAlition S continuing to encourage early dissemination, research administrators are the people authors turn to when a grant deadline, a REF output query, or a journal’s dual-submission policy collides with a preprint decision. Getting the venue right the first time avoids withdrawal-and-repost headaches later.

    What Is bioRxiv? Scope and Screening for the Life Sciences

    What is bioRxiv, in practical terms? Launched in 2013 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), bioRxiv is the default preprint server for biology, covering categories from genetics and neuroscience to ecology, bioinformatics and synthetic biology. It does not carry out peer review; instead, an in-house screening team checks submissions for plagiarism, non-scientific content and material that could raise dual-use or biosecurity concerns. That screening is deliberately lightweight — most manuscripts clear it within a few days — because the platform’s purpose is speed: getting findings into circulation before, or in parallel with, journal submission.

    bioRxiv’s community norms reflect that speed-first design. Authors post early drafts, sometimes before all co-authors have signed off on final wording, and revise versions as review proceeds. Citation of bioRxiv preprints is now normalised across molecular and cell biology, and many journals in the space explicitly permit prior preprint posting, consistent with the ICMJE’s position that preprints are not considered duplicate publication.

    medRxiv’s Extra Safeguards for Clinical and Public Health Research

    medRxiv, launched in 2019 as a partnership between CSHL, Yale University and BMJ, exists precisely because health research carries a different risk profile. Findings about a treatment, a diagnostic tool or a public health intervention can influence clinical decisions or media coverage well before formal peer review has tested their validity — a risk that became impossible to ignore during the COVID-19 pandemic, when preprint clinical claims were repeatedly picked up by outlets without appropriate caveats.

    Accordingly, medRxiv’s screening is more demanding than bioRxiv’s. Submissions are checked for evidence of ethical oversight — IRB or research ethics committee approval or an explicit exemption — and clinical trials must carry a registration ID from an ICMJE-recognised registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov. Screeners also check for material that could identify individual patients or participants. This typically extends the screening window to several days and sometimes longer where in-house queries to authors are needed. Every medRxiv preprint additionally carries a standard notice warning readers not to treat it as established clinical guidance and not to report on it in the media without expert review — a norm bioRxiv does not apply as prominently. COPE’s guidance on preprints reinforces this distinction: the ethical stakes of premature clinical dissemination are materially higher than for most basic-science findings.

    Research Square: Multidisciplinary Reach and Journal-Integrated Preprinting

    Research Square, founded in 2016 and acquired by Springer Nature in 2022, takes a third approach. Rather than specialising by discipline, it accepts preprints across all fields — chemistry, engineering, social sciences, humanities-adjacent research — and its distinguishing feature is In Review, a service used by more than a thousand participating journals. Authors can opt, at the point of journal submission, to have their manuscript automatically posted as a preprint carrying a Crossref DOI and a CC-BY 4.0 licence, with the posting timeline synchronised to the journal’s peer review process. If the paper is accepted, the preprint links through to the published version; if rejected, it remains on the platform with journal branding removed.

    This integration changes the calculus for authors and administrators alike: the decision to preprint becomes a checkbox during submission rather than a separate deposit step, and the resulting record is archived in Portico for long-term preservation. The trade-off is that Research Square’s screening is a light “prescreen” rather than a discipline-specific ethics check, so it does not substitute for medRxiv’s clinical safeguards when the underlying research involves human subjects.

    bioRxiv vs medRxiv: Community Norms, Screening Time and Choosing the Right Venue

    Reduced to a single comparison, the bioRxiv vs medRxiv decision usually comes down to subject matter rather than preference. Laboratory-based biology, genomics, ecology and computational biology belong on bioRxiv, where the community expects rapid posting and light-touch screening. Anything involving patients, clinical trials, epidemiological data or public health interventions belongs on medRxiv, where the additional ethics and registry checks — and the accompanying reader caution notice — are the norm authors and readers now expect. Mixed-methods studies that straddle both (for example, a biomarker study with clinical trial data) are typically routed to medRxiv because of its subject-matter screening for human-participant research.

    Research Square becomes the right answer when the target journal offers In Review, when the field falls outside strict biology or health sciences, or when an author wants preprinting handled automatically as part of submission rather than as a separate action. None of these three platforms competes on rigour of peer review — none of them performs peer review at all — so the choice is really about matching screening depth and community expectations to the sensitivity of the findings.

    What This Means for Research Administrators

    Research offices supporting authors through this decision should keep several practicalities in mind:

    • Match the server to the risk profile, not just the discipline label — a biology-adjacent study with human data belongs on medRxiv, not bioRxiv, because of the ethics-approval and trial-registration checks.
    • Advise on funder and REF implications separately. A preprint DOI is not automatically an eligible REF output; administrators should confirm that authors also deposit the accepted manuscript once peer review concludes.
    • Check ORCID linkage at submission. All three platforms support ORCID iDs, and consistent linkage keeps the preprint, the eventual published article and institutional repository records connected via Crossref DOIs.
    • Flag journal dual-submission policies early. Most major publishers now follow ICMJE guidance that preprints are not prior publication, but a minority of venues retain restrictions, so this is worth a five-minute check before posting.
    • Treat CRediT contributor statements as part of the preprint record, not an afterthought. CASRAI originated the CRediT contributor role taxonomy in 2014, and the standard is now stewarded by NISO as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022; applying it consistently from preprint to final publication reduces later authorship disputes.

    As preprint culture becomes the expected first step rather than an optional extra, the administrative burden shifts from “should we preprint” to “which server, and what compliance checks follow from that choice.” Institutions that build simple decision guidance — discipline, human-subjects status, target journal integration — into their researcher-facing documentation will spend less time untangling withdrawal requests and mismatched registry records later. The underlying standards bodies, from ICMJE to COPE to NISO, are converging on the same principle: preprints are a legitimate part of the scholarly record, provided the screening, registration and attribution practices around them are transparent and consistently applied.