technical paper

Peer Review Congress 2022

September 10, 2022

Chicago, United States

medRxiv Preprint Submissions, Posts, and Key Metrics, 2019-2021 | VIDEO


dissemination of information


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 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 In total, 47 posted preprints (0.17%) were subsequently withdrawn, 30 of which were COVID-19– related.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 (, being on the Board of Managers of AIP Publishing (https://, and being European coordinator for the Peer Review Congress ( 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.


SlidesTranscript English (automatic)

Next from Peer Review Congress 2022

Assessment of Concordance Between Reports of Clinical Studies Posted as medRxiv Preprints and Corresponding Publications in Peer Reviewed Journals
technical paper

Assessment of Concordance Between Reports of Clinical Studies Posted as medRxiv Preprints and Corresponding Publications in Peer Reviewed Journals

Peer Review Congress 2022

Guneet Janda

10 September 2022

Similar lecture

An Approach for Improving DBpedia as a Research Data Hub
technical paper

An Approach for Improving DBpedia as a Research Data Hub

WebMedia 2020

+1Maria Luiza Machado CamposMaria Cláudia CavalcantiJean Gabriel Nguema Ngomo
Jean Gabriel Nguema Ngomo and 3 other authors

01 December 2020

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

Select topic of interest (you can select more than one)


  • All Lectures
  • For Librarians
  • Resource Center
  • Free Trial
Underline Science, Inc.
1216 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

© 2023 Underline - All rights reserved