openRxiv Q&A: Questions About Governance, Funding, and the Future of Preprints

Following the March 2025 launch of openRxiv as an independent nonprofit, we’ve received a range of thoughtful questions from researchers, partners, and the broader scientific community. To answer these questions and share more about openRxiv, we did a Q&A with co-founder and Chief Science and Strategy Officer Richard Sever, co-founder and Chair of the Scientific and Medical Advisory Board, John Inglis and Chief Operating Officer, Tracy Teal. As a part of our ongoing commitment to transparency and community engagement we address some of the most common inquiries around openRxiv’s governance, funding, operations, and the role of preprints in today’s research ecosystem.

So, let’s jump in!

Q: Why was openRxiv launched as an independent nonprofit?

Richard: openRxiv was created to support the long-term sustainability of preprint servers like bioRxiv and medRxiv. The launch builds on years of community engagement and the collaborative efforts of supporters, including Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), and various other funders and institutions. The goal is to create a stable, independent non-profit organization that ensures these platforms remain open and accessible and is governed by and for the research community, not a single funder, founder, or any one stakeholder. openRxiv was set up to sustain the servers, continue to broaden access to research, and identify new funding sources.

Q: Who governs openRxiv, and how are organizational decisions made?

John: openRxiv is governed by a 6-member board of directors:  Scott Fraser (University of Southern California and CZI Imaging Institute), Edith Heard (Crick Institute), Jeff Huber (Triatomic Capital), Harlan Krumholz (Yale School of Medicine; medRxiv co-founder), Bruce Stillman (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), and Shirley Tilghman (Princeton University). These are widely respected individuals with deep leadership experience in scientific organizations, who are helping openRxiv as individual supporters of its mission, not institutional representatives. The board approves key policies, provides strategic guidance, and oversees executive leadership.

I chair the Scientific and Medical Advisory Board (SMAB) and medRxiv co-founder Theo Bloom is deputy chair. The SMAB represents the community of the servers’ authors and readers, and provides guidance to the executive team on content policies and new features and functions. We’ll also be creating a Business Development Advisory Group to help develop strategies for financial sustainability.  

The executive leadership team handling day-to-day operations includes Richard, who is Chief Science and Strategy Officer, and Interim COO Tracy Teal, and they will soon be joined by the inaugural Chief Executive Officer and additional team members. 

Q: Are there commercial or corporate stakeholders influencing openRxiv?

Tracy: No. openRxiv is entirely independent and is not beholden to any funder, institution, or company. Funding agreements do not include stipulations that impact editorial independence or operational decisions.

Q: What is CZI’s role in openRxiv?

Tracy: CZI has been one of the key funders of bioRxiv for eight years and medRxiv for four years, for which we are very grateful. In the transition to openRxiv, CZI provided three years of seed funding to help launch the organization. They have no editorial or operational control. One person on the six-member board has a CZI affiliation. 

Q: How do bioRxiv and medRxiv ensure transparency in their content acceptance policies?

John: The server sites contain detailed information and FAQs for prospective authors about what is and isn’t acceptable for posting on bioRxiv and medRxiv (the requirements are slightly different for each). All submissions are screened by the in-house Content Team. Affiliate scientists, who are listed on each server site, must approve each manuscript before it goes live. For articles in challenging areas, e.g. dual use research of concern, advice is solicited from subject matter experts. Only a small minority of submissions are declined. The authors are told why and appeals are always considered. Screening policy issues and procedures are discussed in occasional blog posts.

Q: Is openRxiv against peer review?

John: Absolutely not. Because preprints are posted after screening but not lengthy peer review, they enable new scientific findings to be distributed much more rapidly than through journals. New information becomes available for the community’s critical evaluation in hours or days, accelerating the pace of research. But 75% of bioRxiv and medRxiv preprints go on to be published in peer-reviewed journals and the servers enable authors to submit their work quickly and directly to 350 of them.  So openRxiv is certainly not “against” peer review. In fact, we’re delighted that bioRxiv has become a platform for a growing number of initiatives intended to evolve traditional peer review to make it more transparent, inclusive, and constructive.

Q: What safeguards are in place to prevent the spread of misinformation through the preprint servers?

Richard: openRxiv has robust screening processes to minimize the risk dangerous information is disseminated. All papers are screened by scientifically or medically qualified individuals. The scientific community is also a critical part of this ecosystem. Preprints are visible to a global audience who can provide feedback, scrutiny, and commentary. Transparency and community engagement help minimize the risk of misinformation. Authors may also mark preprints as ‘withdrawn’ if they no longer stand by the findings.

Q: How does openRxiv protect user data?

Richard: We collect minimal personal information (e.g., author names and emails) and follow all applicable data privacy regulations. Most author-submitted information is public by design, and this is clearly stated in submission guidelines.

Q: Is AI or machine learning used in the submission process?

Tracy: We are exploring how AI can assist with screening and discovery, but it will not replace human oversight. AI can review for certain checks in screening, e.g. does the the manuscript have a title, and surface things for screeners to review, but there will always be a human in the loop. 

Q: Are you working on any new partnerships or features?

Richard: Yes. One example is that we’re working on collaborations that connect preprints with related data, code, and evaluation of the science by the community. The goal is to improve discoverability, provide context, and better serve researchers and readers alike, without changing the core simplicity of the platform. There are lot of other opportunities around partnerships and features too that we’re beginning to explore.

Q: What are your plans for long-term financial sustainability?

Tracy: We are pursuing diversified funding models, but our mission remains non-negotiable: to make scientific content free to read and free to post on openRxiv platforms. We will never accept funding that compromises editorial or operational independence. One of our key goals is to develop a sustainability model that aligns with our goals of making research more openly and freely available to all.  

Q: How does openRxiv broaden access and engagement in science?

Richard: We’re working to lower barriers through outreach, education, and advocacy. It’s free to post, but we know awareness and comfort with preprints vary by region, discipline, and background. Our goal is to provide the information and support communities need to participate confidently.

Q: What message would you share with the broader public about preprints?

John: People in general are less aware than we would like them to be that science is an evolving process. The great writer Ed Yong has described it as “less the parade of decisive blockbuster discoveries that the press often portrays, and more a slow, erratic stumble toward ever less uncertainty.” So the public should regard preprints as conversations among scientists and be aware, as the bioRxiv and medRxiv sites state, that the articles “might contain errors and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community”. Preprints allow researchers to share accounts of their work swiftly and openly, before they are peer-reviewed, to stimulate debate, argument, and – if need be – correction. And if work is found worthy by those qualified to judge, it can be built upon immediately, not many months later when it appears in a journal. This helps accelerate discovery and may generate new, unexpected, productive collaborations. So rather than undermining the credibility of science, preprints enhance it by encouraging dialogue, open debate, transparency, and faster feedback…communication at the speed of science. And if a posted preprint is found to contain errors or omissions, either by the authors themselves or those who comment on it publicly or privately, the authors can post a corrected version at any time. Or if they have lost confidence in the report after further work, the authors may withdraw the preprint, with a public reason. A preprint can also be withdrawn, by the server, if a corresponding author makes inaccurate declarations (eg about consent from all named authors) or if an institutional review has determined that the report has flaws (eg the omission of authors who should have been credited). But as we keep saying, preprints should be treated with caution. 

Q. Are commercial companies permitted to post preprints?

John:  Yes, manuscripts from companies are accepted by bioRxiv and medRxiv provided they conform to the server’s submission criteria. This means that the article must describe research, the methods and materials used, the results, and the conclusions drawn. A description of a company product and its applications is not acceptable. Author affiliations are required, so the fact that the work was done within a company and is being reported by company employees is clear to readers. On medRxiv, academic scientists with company associations are expected to disclose them as potential conflicts of interest. Companies have been known to do press releases with the intention to disclose new research results in a forthcoming preprint. If they do so, it is prudent to follow through to avoid reputational damage.