technical paper
medRxiv Preprint Submissions, Posts, and Key Metrics, 2019-2021 | VIDEO
keywords:
dissemination of information
preprints
open science
Objective Preprint servers offer a means to disseminate
research reports before or concurrent with peer-review.1
medRxiv, an independent, not-for-profit preprint server for
clinical and health science research introduced in June 2019,
grew substantially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.2
Submissions, preprints posted, and user downloads for
medRxiv since launch were characterized.
Design This analysis used data from the medRxiv website,
internal data, and Altmetric.com from June 11, 2019 (launch),
through December 31, 2021. Submissions, postings, abstract
views, downloads, comments, and withdrawals were assessed.
The posting rate was calculated as the percentage of
submissions that were posted after passing screening criteria,
including that the submission represents scientific research
(not a narrative review, commentary, or case report). In
addition, all posted preprints with Altmetric scores greater
than 1000 were identified. Published journal articles
corresponding to posted preprints were identified through
routine, automated searches of PubMed and CrossRef.
Results As of December 31, 2021, there were 33,342
submissions to medRxiv, 27,674 (83.0%) of which were
subsequently posted after screening: 913 in 2019, 14,070 in
2020, and 12,691 in 2021. Among these, 6165 (22.3%) had
been revised at least once and 4227 (15.3%) were
simultaneously submitted to journals as part of the M2J
program. Overall, 16,465 preprints (59.5%) described
COVID-19 research. In total, 47 posted preprints (0.17%)
were subsequently withdrawn, 30 of which were COVID-19–
related. Preprints have thus far been posted by 156,290
unique authors from 151 countries, most commonly from the
United States, the United Kingdom, and China. As of
December 31, 2021, there were 51,943,342 downloads and
132,900,392 abstract views: 107,772 and 241,528 in 2019;
27,963,915 and 61,613,928 in 2020; and 23,871,655 and
71,044,936 in 2021. The median (IQR) number of downloads
per preprint was 451 (261-904) and abstract views per
preprint was 1659 (1055-2955). There have been 8394 total
user comments on preprints and 2199 preprints (7.9%) have
at least 1 user comment. There were 312 preprints (1.1%) with
an Altmetric score greater than 1000, all but 1 of which was
COVID-19–related; the median (IQR) Altmetric score was 2
(0-11). Thus far, 10,041 preprints (36.3%) were subsequently
published in 2316 peer-reviewed journals, with a median
interval between preprint posting and journal publication of
140 days, including 566 (62.0%), 6615 (47.0%), and 2860
(22.5%) that were published after being posted in 2019, 2020,
and 2021, respectively.
Conclusions medRxiv grew rapidly since its launch,
particularly for COVID-19–related research. The preprint
server is an active repository for clinical and health science
research; future research should also account for peer
communication through social media.
References
1. Krumholz HM, Ross JS, Otto CM. Will research preprints
improve healthcare for patients? BMJ. 2018;362:k3628.
doi:10.1136/bmj.k3628
2. Krumholz HM, Bloom T, Sever R, et al. Submissions and
downloads of preprints in the first year of medRxiv. JAMA.
2020;324:1903-1905. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.17529
Conflict of Interest Disclosures All authors disclose being
cofounders of medRxiv. Joseph Ross is a former associate editor of
JAMA Internal Medicine, a current research editor at The BMJ, and
receives research support through Yale University from Johnson
& Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from
the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National
Evaluation System for Health Technology (NEST), from the Food
and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for
Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program
(U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality (R01HS022882), from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01HS025164,
R01HL144644), and from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation
to establish the Good Pharma Scorecard at Bioethics International;
in addition, Joseph Ross is an expert witness at the request of
relator’s attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging
violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against
Biogen Inc. Richard Sever reports being the assistant director
of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press and a director of Life
Science Alliance LLC. Theodora Bloom is employed full time by
The BMJ; reports chairing the scientific advisory board of EMBL-
EBI Literature Services (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/services/literature),
being on the Board of Managers of AIP Publishing (https://
publishing.aip.org/), and being European coordinator for the Peer
Review Congress (https://peerreviewcongress.org/organizers-and-board.html). Samantha Hindle is cofounder of PREreview,
an initiative to support and train early-career researchers in peer
review using preprints. John R. Inglis reports being the executive
director and publisher of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, a
director of Life Science Alliance LLC, and a member of the advisory
board of MIT Press. Harlan M. Krumholz reports that he is a
cofounder of Refactor Health and HugoHealth, is associated with
contracts, through Yale New Haven Hospital from the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services and through Yale University from
Johnson & Johnson, and has received expenses and/or personal
fees from UnitedHealth, Element Science, Aetna, Reality Labs,
Tesseract/4Catalyst, the Siegfried and Jensen Law Firm, Arnold
and Porter Law Firm, Martin/Baughman Law Firm, and F-Prime.
Theodora Bloom is a member of the Peer Review Congress Advisory
Board but was not involved in the review or decision for this
abstract.
Funding/Support This work was supported in part by funds
from Chan Zuckerberg Initiative through the Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor The funder had no role in the
design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis,
and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of
the abstract; and decision to submit the abstract for presentation.