CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: preprint servers list

  • eLife BioRxiv Model: Review After Posting Changes Peer Review

    eLife biorxiv review works in reverse order to a conventional journal: the paper is posted publicly on bioRxiv first, and eLife’s editors and reviewers evaluate it only after it is already visible to the world, publishing the result as a “Reviewed Preprint” rather than issuing an accept-or-reject verdict.

    A Reviewed Preprint is a bioRxiv or medRxiv manuscript that has been through eLife’s editorial and peer-review process and is published, alongside public reviews and an eLife Assessment, without a binary publication decision attached to it.

    What Is eLife’s Preprint-Only Review Model?

    eLife requires every submission to already exist as a preprint, typically on bioRxiv or medRxiv, before its editors will consider it. Editors — themselves active researchers — screen incoming preprints and select a subset for full review. In 2023, eLife formalised this into its Publish, Review, Curate model, removing the accept/reject gate entirely: any preprint that goes through full review is published as a Reviewed Preprint, regardless of how favourable the assessment turns out to be.

    This inverts the journal’s traditional role. Instead of deciding whether a paper reaches readers, eLife’s reviewers now decide how a paper readers can already see should be interpreted, through a public review and a standardised eLife Assessment describing the significance of the findings and the strength of the evidence.

    How Does eLife Review a Preprint Already on bioRxiv?

    The workflow eLife uses is consultative rather than adversarial, and it produces a single, consolidated verdict rather than several disconnected reviewer reports. In practice it runs through six stages:

    1. The author posts the manuscript to bioRxiv or medRxiv as a preprint.
    2. The author submits the same preprint to eLife for consideration.
    3. A reviewing editor screens the preprint and decides whether to send it for full review; many submissions are declined at this stage.
    4. Two or three external reviewers and the editor hold a consultative discussion to produce one consolidated set of comments rather than separate, sometimes-conflicting reports, with authorship and contribution details carried over from the original preprint.
    5. eLife publishes the preprint together with the public reviews and an eLife Assessment as a Reviewed Preprint.
    6. The author chooses whether, and when, to revise the work, resubmit it for further review, or declare it a Version of Record.

    This builds on a service eLife had already run since May 2020, when it launched “Preprint Review” to bring peer review to manuscripts already on bioRxiv, and on a submission pathway available since 2017 that let authors upload to bioRxiv while submitting to eLife in parallel.

    How Does This Differ From Traditional Pre-Publication Peer Review?

    The core difference is sequencing: in a conventional journal, review happens before the public ever sees the manuscript, and the outcome of that review is a gatekeeping decision. In eLife’s model, the manuscript is already public, and review adds an evaluative layer on top of it rather than deciding whether it exists at all.

    Feature eLife’s model Traditional pre-publication review
    Timing Publish first, review second Review first, publish only if accepted
    Outcome No accept/reject; all reviewed work is published as a Reviewed Preprint Binary accept/reject decision
    Transparency Reviews and eLife Assessment published openly Reviewer identities and comments usually confidential
    Author control Author decides when to revise or declare a Version of Record Author must satisfy editor/reviewers to be published at all
    Unit of evaluation Article-level assessment Journal-level acceptance, often read as a proxy for quality

    The trade-off is real, not just structural. Because Clarivate’s Journal Impact Factor methodology requires an indexed journal to publish only papers that editors have formally validated as acceptable, eLife’s decision to publish every reviewed preprint — regardless of the assessment’s verdict — led Clarivate to discontinue eLife’s Journal Impact Factor from its 2025 Journal Citation Reports release, ending a metric that had stood at 6.4.

    Where Does bioRxiv Fit Among Preprint Servers?

    bioRxiv (pronounced “bio-archive”) is a free preprint server for the life sciences, operated by openRxiv, a nonprofit dedicated to advancing scientific communication. It sits within a wider ecosystem of subject-specific preprint servers, several of which are frequently confused with one another or with journal-run review platforms such as Research Square’s In Review.

    Server Field Screening model
    bioRxiv Life sciences Basic screening only; operated by nonprofit openRxiv
    medRxiv Health sciences / clinical Additional screening for clinical risk; also run by openRxiv
    arXiv Physics, maths, computer science Moderated but not peer-reviewed; run by Cornell University
    Research Square Multidisciplinary Preprint posting plus optional “In Review” integrated peer review, tied to Springer Nature journals
    SSRN Social sciences, economics, law Basic screening; owned by Elsevier
    ChemRxiv Chemistry Basic screening; run by chemical societies

    The distinction that matters for the “biorxiv or arxiv” question is disciplinary scope, not rigour: arXiv predates bioRxiv by more than two decades and serves physical sciences, while bioRxiv (launched 2013) was purpose-built for biology. Neither performs peer review itself — that is precisely the gap eLife’s model was designed to fill for bioRxiv content.

    What Does This Mean for Research Administrators and Institutions?

    For research administration offices, the practical question is no longer whether a preprint has been reviewed, but whether assessment, promotion, and funding-reporting processes recognise a Reviewed Preprint as equivalent to a conventional accepted article. That question is not yet uniformly answered.

    • The US National Institutes of Health has permitted preprints to be cited in grant applications and biosketches since 2017, establishing precedent that funders can recognise unpublished-but-posted work.
    • eLife reports that a growing number of funders now explicitly recognise Reviewed Preprints, rather than only the eventual Version of Record, in research assessment.
    • Institutions signed to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) already commit to evaluating research on its own merits rather than journal-level metrics — directly compatible with article-level eLife Assessments, since Clarivate no longer supplies a journal Impact Factor to fall back on.
    • Research administrators handling REF-style exercises, tenure dossiers, or grant reports need local guidance on whether the Reviewed Preprint, the eLife Assessment, or the Version of Record is the citable unit — under the 2023 model, all three can exist for one piece of work, each with its own DOI in a single version log.

    A data point often missing from commentary on the model: a 2019 eLife study by Abdill and Blekhman tracking bioRxiv preprint outcomes found eLife published almost as many bioRxiv preprints (394) in 2018 as any other single journal — over a third of its 1,172 articles that year — years before the 2023 model made this the default route.

    Common Questions About eLife and bioRxiv

    Is eLife a preprint?

    No. eLife is a journal, not a preprint server. It reviews manuscripts that authors have already posted as preprints on bioRxiv or medRxiv and publishes the result as a Reviewed Preprint — the preprint plus public reviews and an eLife Assessment, distinct from the original unreviewed posting.

    What is bioRxiv used for?

    bioRxiv is used to share life-sciences research immediately, before or independent of journal peer review. Researchers post manuscripts to establish priority, gather early feedback, and make findings available while formal review — at eLife or elsewhere — is still under way, sometimes for months.

    Why did eLife lose its impact factor?

    Clarivate discontinued eLife’s Journal Impact Factor because eLife now publishes every peer-reviewed submission as a Reviewed Preprint regardless of the review outcome, rather than issuing conventional accept/reject decisions. Clarivate’s indexing rules require journals to publish only editorially validated papers, so eLife’s model fell outside that requirement from the 2025 Journal Citation Reports release.

    Is eLife a high-impact journal?

    eLife’s citation performance was historically strong — its last Journal Impact Factor was 6.4 — but it no longer carries a Clarivate-assigned Impact Factor. Its standing is now judged through article-level eLife Assessments and public reviews rather than a single journal-wide citation metric.

    As more funders and institutions formalise how they treat Reviewed Preprints, Public Reviews, and eLife Assessments in research assessment, eLife’s model looks less like an isolated experiment and more like an early test case for peer review as a layer added on top of open preprints, rather than a gate placed in front of them. Research offices that decide this now — before it becomes a routine dossier question — will have a real advantage over those that wait for a funder mandate to force the issue.

  • 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.