Preprint servers and what screening they do posts 91–107
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.
The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.
post #92 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Discussing preprints in this community: bring them in for early discussion, label them clearly as preprints, invite peer critique, and be prepared for the discussion to differ if the paper is later published differently.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
On post #90 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Unrefereed work is not worthless. A great deal of it survives review substantially unchanged. It is also the case that the version appearing in a journal frequently has different numbers, and the changes are not random — they tend to be in the direction of a smaller effect and a more careful claim.
I read post #94 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
How to cite a preprint: author last name, first initial, et al. Title. Server name [preprint]. Posted date. Doi. Include the server name and note that it is a preprint.
post #96 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
Always label it as a preprint in any discussion. A preprint is not a published trial and it is not settled knowledge. Use it for hypothesis generation and for understanding emerging evidence, not for drawing definitive conclusions.
Picking up post #96: that is the part I would want checked first.
Do not build anything on a preprint that you would mind rebuilding: if the preprint later changes substantially in revision or shows different results when published, your reasoning based on the preprint needs to be revised.
Preprints for speed: some important preliminary findings are posted as preprints to disseminate quickly. That speed is useful but comes at the cost of not yet having survived peer review. The trade-off is real.
post #102 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Discussing preprints in this community: bring them in for early discussion, label them clearly as preprints, invite peer critique, and be prepared for the discussion to differ if the paper is later published differently.
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
I read post #104 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Server repositories: medRxiv for medicine, bioRxiv for biology. Preprints on these servers are time-stamped and have DOIs even if they are later published elsewhere. Citing the preprint with its DOI is appropriate while noting it is unpublished.
This topic was referenced in
- When a preprint is the best available evidence and we say soEvidence › Preprints · 160 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — what changed since
On the subject in the title: A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021). Please read it…
|
+3 | 7 | 125 | 8mo |
|
Coming back to: Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part
Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Comparing SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med , 2021) with STEP 4 (…
|
+109 | 116 | 36k | 2d |
|
When a preprint is the best available evidence and we say so — a second dataset
When a preprint is the best available evidence and we say so — a second dataset I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. I have seen SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med ,…
|
+20 | 24 | 36k | 14mo |
|
Tracking a preprint to publication: a worked example — the long version
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Tracking a preprint to publication: a worked example — the long version Everything below is what sits behind that. Comparing STEP 8 ( JAMA , 2022) with STEP 2 (…
|
+38 | 47 | 560 | 22mo |
|
[2026 update] Conference abstracts as evidence: the weakest common citation
Conference abstracts as evidence: the weakest common citation — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Comparing STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021) with SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024) and finding…
|
2 | 48k | 7mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags preprint, effect size, needs a source
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Levothyroxine timing: a real interaction with a simple fix
Levothyroxine timing: a real interaction with a simple fix Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Reporting something rather than asking about it, in case the…
|
+20 | 24 | 60k | 18mo |
|
Regression to the mean in progress reports
On the subject in the title: Regression to the mean in progress reports Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: PIONEER 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2019). Please read it before posting; the discussion…
|
+30 | 34 | 49k | 12mo |
|
How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work — the long version
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work — the long version I have seen SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022) cited in support of a…
|
+18 | 23 | 21k | 2mo |
|
AOD-9604 and the fragment hypothesis, revisited
Posting this under the heading it deserves: AOD-9604 and the fragment hypothesis, revisited Everything below is what sits behind that. Comparing SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med , 2021) with SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med…
|
+40 | 44 | 2.8k | 6mo |
|
BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. I have seen PIONEER 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2019)…
|
+77 | 84 | 54k | 11mo |