In view of the need of a preprint repository for biology science, why was it necessary to start bioRxiv, instead of a biology section in arXiv? Is there any fundamental difference between the two? If bioRxiv becomes popular now, why weren't biologists willing to use arXiv?

  • 2
    Not really an answer, but as far as my research (cell/molecular biology) is concerned, my work would simply be out of scope in the "quantitative biology" section of arXiv. It seems to be mostly for papers about modelling of biological processes, machine learning-based analyses... but no room for wet lab papers and classic "knock out a gene and see what happens" type of biology
    – Mowgli
    Commented May 19, 2019 at 7:23
  • 5
    @Mowgli, I'm aware of qbio and it's limit. But one could request arXiv to open a new section for biology. arXiv has opened many new sections for new disciplines during its development. I don't understand why that was not an option for biology. I would like to hear about the considerations that leads to a new bioRxiv.
    – Hao Chen
    Commented May 19, 2019 at 8:33
  • They are different organizations driven by different people and different funding sources. Arxiv doesn't accept biology papers so I wouldn't submit my biology papers there.
    – Bryan Krause
    Commented May 19, 2019 at 17:23
  • @BryanKrause arXiv started as a physics archieve, was not accepting maths or computer science papers neither. I don't see how this is a problem.
    – Hao Chen
    Commented May 19, 2019 at 17:54
  • 2
    Paul Ginsparg, the arXiv founder, is on the biorxiv advisory board, so there's clearly been some communication between the two entities. I would speculate that the biorxiv folks either i) wanted something less LaTeX-integrated, or ii) wanted a heavyweight sponsor/host to help legitimize the idea of preprints in the eyes of the community and journals.
    – Anyon
    Commented May 19, 2019 at 19:25

1 Answer 1


ArXiv was not interested in expanding into biology (apart from quantitative bio). A 2013 Nature news article about the establishment of bioRχiv explains:

ArXiv’s quantitative biology section, launched in 2003, has seen exponential gains in the past two years [. . .] But arXiv does not plan to expand into other areas of the life sciences, such as cell and molecular biology, and the site is not designed with biologists in mind.

In 2018, arXiv Operations Manager Jim Entwood discussed how the arXiv decides whether to expand into new subjects, saying that they ask "How does the proposed category fit into the rest of arXiv?" and that they are "fairly conservative when it comes to adding new categories".

This comes in part from our general principles, and our commitment to those communities we already serve. We also need to ensure sustainable growth both in terms of active engagement with research communities and the financial and organizational capacity of arXiv. Decisions for category expansion are ultimately up to the arXiv Program Director and Scientific Director with input from arXiv staff and the Scientific Advisory Board.

  • 2
    Thank you for the references. I think biology may also come negative in regard to "How do e-prints fit into the research and publishing practice of the community?"
    – Hao Chen
    Commented May 20, 2019 at 5:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .