bioRxiv vs medRxiv vs ChemRxiv: Preprint Norms Researchers Get Wrong

Preprint servers are now a standard part of the research workflow across biology, medicine, and chemistry. The logic is straightforward: post a completed manuscript before peer review, establish a timestamp on your findings, get community feedback, and start contributing to the literature without waiting twelve months for a journal decision. Most researchers who have used one of these servers are broadly aware of how this works. What they are frequently less clear on is that the three major servers in the life and chemical sciences are not interchangeable, and the differences between them matter in ways that go beyond which field you work in.

The three mistakes researchers make most consistently are submitting to the wrong server for their content type, assuming that "screening" means roughly the same thing across all three, and posting in parallel across servers when that is either discouraged or, in some cases, explicitly not permitted. Each of these has real consequences, either for the manuscript itself or for how it will be received.

bioRxiv: Biology's Standard, With a Specific Scope

bioRxiv launched in 2013 as a non-profit community service, bringing preprinting to the life sciences. As of 2025, it has posted around 268,000 preprints from approximately 970,000 authors, adding about 4,000 new manuscripts per month. Since March 2025, it is operated by openRxiv, an independent nonprofit that took over from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. The governance change matters less operationally than it does structurally: the same submission system, the same URLs, and the same screening processes continue unchanged.

What researchers frequently underestimate is what "basic screening" actually means on bioRxiv. Volunteer bioRxiv Affiliates assess whether each submission is biological research and whether there is potential for public harm. The server is not a dump-it-and-go repository. Plagiarism checks, scope assessment, and dual-use biosecurity screening are all part of the process. What is not present is any form of peer review of scientific quality, which is the point. The preprint is publicly labeled as such.

The scope question is where bioRxiv submissions most frequently go wrong. bioRxiv covers fundamental biological research with new data. Clinical papers should go to medRxiv, bioRxiv's own submission guidance is explicit that clinical trial reports and most epidemiology submissions must go to medRxiv rather than bioRxiv. The two categories that catch researchers out most often are preclinical pharmacology studies with clear therapeutic intent and observational studies in human cohorts. Both sit in a gray zone. The guiding principle is that if the work could plausibly influence a clinical decision or a public health response, it belongs on medRxiv.

medRxiv: Stricter Than It Looks

medRxiv launched in 2019 as a free preprint server for health sciences, covering medicine, clinical research, epidemiology, and public health, now receiving over 30,000 submissions per year. It has posted around 64,000 preprints from approximately 380,000 authors.

The common misconception about medRxiv is that it is simply bioRxiv for medicine. It is not. The scope is substantially narrower, and the screening process is materially more stringent in ways that carry real submission requirements.

medRxiv is scoped to randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, epidemiology, cohort and observational studies, public-health research, and related human-health work. Preclinical or basic biology, even where the eventual application is medical, generally belongs on bioRxiv instead. Several content types are explicitly excluded, not merely discouraged: case reports and case series, preclinical or veterinary studies, narrative reviews, editorials and opinion pieces, hypotheses without supporting data, and standalone guidelines, policy statements, or protocols with no accompanying results are all out of scope.

The case report exclusion is the one that surprises researchers most. A single-patient clinical observation, however striking, will not be accepted at medRxiv. Case reports are excluded specifically because a single, unreplicated clinical observation carries an outsized risk of being misread as clinical guidance, a risk medRxiv's screening standard weighs explicitly.

The additional screening requirements for human-subjects research are a practical hurdle authors sometimes discover only when they open the submission form. Submissions involving human subjects must include a statement of oversight and approval by an Institutional Review Board, Ethics Committee, or equivalent body. Clinical trials must carry an ICMJE-recognized trial registry ID. Neither of these requirements applies to bioRxiv submissions in the same systematic way.

Posting to both bioRxiv and medRxiv is not permitted and will result in article withdrawal. This is the dual-posting rule that researchers most consistently get wrong when their work straddles the boundary between basic and clinical science. The two servers are sister platforms under the same infrastructure, and their systems will catch it.

ChemRxiv: A Different Governance Model Entirely

ChemRxiv was founded in 2017 as a joint venture between the American Chemical Society, the Chinese Chemical Society, the Chemical Society of Japan, the Royal Society of Chemistry, and the German Chemical Society. As of mid-2024, authors have uploaded more than 25,800 preprints, with nearly 800 new uploads every month.

The governance structure here is structurally different from the other two. ChemRxiv is operated by the American Chemical Society and Cambridge University Press, not by openRxiv. This matters because ChemRxiv sits within a publisher-affiliated ecosystem rather than an independent nonprofit one, which affects both how it is funded and how it integrates with downstream journal submission. ChemRxiv includes the ability for authors to submit a version of their preprint directly to a number of participating journals through the ChemRxiv Direct Journal Transfer program.

Scope on ChemRxiv is broader than many researchers assume. Chemistry's core subdisciplines are obviously covered, but the server also accepts materials science, chemical engineering, and biochemistry, making it the appropriate venue for a substantial slice of work that sits at the chemistry-biology boundary. A paper on drug synthesis, a computational chemistry study of protein-ligand interactions, or work on biomaterials would generally belong on ChemRxiv rather than bioRxiv, even though the subject matter touches biology. The question is whether the primary methodology and framing are chemical.

The Misconception That Matters Most: Scope Over Speed

The practical error that underlies most wrong submissions is treating these servers as a speed-optimization choice rather than a routing decision. Researchers sometimes submit to whichever server they have an account with, or whichever their labmates use, without checking whether their content type is actually in scope.

The practical distinction authors need is scope, not scale. bioRxiv covers fundamental biological research with new data; medRxiv is reserved for work that could plausibly influence a clinical decision, a public-health response, or patient behavior. ChemRxiv sits separately from both, with chemistry and chemical sciences as the organizing principle rather than any biomedical scope.

Getting this wrong is not merely an administrative inconvenience. A clinical epidemiology paper posted to bioRxiv will carry a disclaimer that is calibrated to non-clinical research, which affects how readers, journalists, and institutional press offices interpret its status. A basic pharmacology paper routed to medRxiv may be declined at screening, adding delay rather than removing it. And a manuscript posted across multiple servers simultaneously runs the risk of metric dilution and, in the case of bioRxiv and medRxiv specifically, explicit policy violation.

A Decision Framework

If the work reports original biological data without direct clinical application: bioRxiv.

If the work involves human subjects, clinical outcomes, epidemiology, or public health, and makes conclusions that could inform clinical practice or policy: medRxiv, provided the study is not a case report, narrative review, or preclinical-only design.

If the primary discipline is chemistry, materials science, chemical engineering, or biochemistry with a chemical framing: ChemRxiv.

If the work crosses two of these categories, the dominant methodology and the plausible downstream use are what determine where it belongs. When genuinely unsure, both bioRxiv and medRxiv provide author guidance and will redirect submissions that land in the wrong place during screening rather than simply rejecting them.

References

openRxiv. Versions in action: updating our preprint on preprints.
https://openrxiv.org/updated-preprint/
bioRxiv FAQ. What types of content can be posted on bioRxiv?
https://www.biorxiv.org/about/FAQ
LSU Libraries. Preprint Servers List.
https://guides.lib.lsu.edu/c.php?g=962078&p=6948257
American Chemical Society / ChemRxiv. Seven Years and Counting: ChemRxiv's 2024 in Review.
https://axial.acs.org/publishing/seven-years-and-counting-chemrxivs-2024-in-review
casrai.org. bioRxiv vs medRxiv.
https://casrai.org/compare/biorxiv-vs-medrxiv
casrai.org. medRxiv Explained.
https://casrai.org/guides/medrxiv-explained
ManuSights. Preprint Servers Explained: bioRxiv, medRxiv, arXiv, and Real Tradeoffs.
https://manusights.com/blog/preprint-servers-explained-biorxiv-medrxiv-arxiv

bioRxiv vs medRxiv vs ChemRxiv: Preprint Norms Researchers Get Wrong