The free preprint servers bioRxiv and medRxiv, which during the past decade have sped up scientific communication by allowing biomedical researchers to share unreviewed manuscripts, today announced they will operate under a new nonprofit. Those involved hope to grow the share of all papers first appearing as preprints, increase submissions from authors in the Global South, and expand experiments to vet preprints.
Called openRxiv, the new nonprofit will take over for Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), which has hosted bioRxiv since it was founded in 2013 and medRxiv since it began in 2019. Organizers plan no big changes to their operations. But being independent should help improve the platforms’ technological capabilities and user interfaces, as well as their fundraising and marketing, says John Inglis, executive director of CSHL Press and a co-founder of both sites. Organizers also envision adding new servers on other scientific topics. “The benefit of having openRxiv is that it has one goal, one mission to deliver, and it’s very focused on that, rather than it being part of a larger and more complicated academic organization,” Inglis says.
Another motivation for starting openRxiv is to set up governing boards with broad memberships that represent the interests of the scientific community, Inglis says; until now the platforms have been overseen by CSHL’s board. Inglis will chair openRxiv’s scientific and medical advisory board. The governing board of directors will include, among others, a medRxiv co-founder, Yale University cardiologist Harlan Krumholz; Princeton University president emeritus Shirley Tilghman, a molecular biologist who has been a prominent voice on various community issues; and CSHL President Bruce Stillman. “I’m very proud that Cold Spring Harbor started [bioRxiv and medRxiv]. It’s like having a child; you don’t ever part with a child,” he says. Another co-founder of the two platforms, CSHL Press Assistant Director Richard Sever, will leave that post to become chief scientific strategy officer of openRxiv, which will search for a CEO.
Principal funders are the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI)—a foundation funded by Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg, which already supported bioRxiv and medRxiv through CSHL—and another donor that wishes to remain anonymous. The organization’s new leaders hope having a full-time CEO will help it raise more funds from universities whose scholars use the platforms, and other sources, Stillman says. “Ultimately I was the surrogate CEO of bioRxiv and medRxiv, and I have a pretty busy day job, running my own lab and also running the institution.” Some research institutions have previously supported the servers through donations to CSHL, which also contributed its own funds.
Because of the vagaries of fundraising, bioRxiv and medRxiv’s independent status may put them in a riskier financial situation at first, says Andrea Chiarelli, principal consultant at the firm Research Consulting, which tracks the publishing industry. But, “It also gives them a lot of freedom. I see more opportunities than risk.”
With a budget of about $3 million a year, bioRxiv and medRxiv have together published more preprints than any other biology server, a volume exceeded only by the physics server arXiv. The two platforms are currently run jointly by seven staff members, who lightly vet submitted manuscripts to ensure they use the scientific method and do not endanger the public. Unlike many journals, the servers do not charge authors or readers.
After a slow start, traffic on both platforms soared during the COVID-19 pandemic as researchers flocked to post manuscripts to speed medical treatments and other public health remedies. As the pandemic ebbed, COVID-19 preprints on medRxiv dropped from 80% to just 7%. But growth in preprints about other topics continued: The 12,863 posted on medRxiv in 2024 approached its 2020 peak, and bioRxiv’s tally of 43,629 was above its pandemic peak.
Although the servers already attract papers from 190 countries, authors have disproportionately come from some of the world’s most elite institutions, such as Stanford University and the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. To broaden that pool, Inglis says openRxiv plans to conduct more outreach to campuses via in-person and virtual meetings.
One perceived barrier to preprint server use is that many authors, especially in medical fields, are anxious that the peer-reviewed journals in which they publish will reject a submitted manuscript if it first appeared as a preprint. But journal policies on this have been changing, and some journals have taken the opposite tack. To date, 281 have authorized bioRxiv to allow authors who post a preprint to designate the journal to receive the manuscript as a submission for publication, saving the authors a step; medRxiv has a similar arrangement with 168 journals.
Another fear about preprints related to medical care is that unreviewed findings that turn out to be incorrect could harm patients. To address this concern, bioRxiv and medRxiv have experimented with posting reviews of preprints with the manuscripts, if authors opt in, regardless of whether they submit the work to a journal. About 10,000 of the two platforms’ 335,000 preprints contain such a review, contributed by one of 10 partner organizations, such as the peer-review service Review Commons.
Inglis and colleagues envision that such vetting could help make preprints a default part of scientific publishing across disciplines. In 2019, they published a paper calling for funders to support preprinting by mandating it of grantees, an approach they dubbed Plan U, for “universal.” But this goal is still far from being achieved, with only about 15% of all journal articles starting out as preprints across all servers.
Absent such mandates—and professional incentives from research institutions, such as rewarding preprints in promotion decisions—the professional norms of biomedical scientists may continue to shift gradually on this front, Chiarelli says. BioRxiv and medRxiv haven’t come close to dominating the communications of biomedical researchers to the extent that arXiv has among physicists, which may limit their ability to raise money from a broad swath of donor universities. Still, he says, “interest in these infrastructures is coalescing, and if there was ever a time to be hopeful about the success of [preprinting], that time is probably now.”
