This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Picking up post #28: that is the part I would want checked first.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
Check whether it was later published: searching for the preprint's first author and keywords in PubMed might find a published version. The published version is the stronger citation if it exists.
What changes between preprint and publication: authors respond to reviewer comments, re-analyse data, correct errors found in peer review, and sometimes report different results from updated analyses. The published version is not the same as the preprint.
This follows post #32 rather than contradicting it.
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 Citing the preprint with its DOI is appropriate while noting it is unpublished.
I read post #34 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Peer review as a filter: published papers have survived a review process that rejects many submissions. Preprints have not. Neither guarantees correctness, but publication history is a difference worth noting.
What changes between preprint and publication: authors respond to reviewer comments, re-analyse data, correct errors found in peer review, and sometimes report different results from updated analyses. The published version is not the same as the preprint.
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 Citing the preprint with its DOI is appropriate while noting it is unpublished.
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.
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 #43 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
Check whether it was later published: searching for the preprint's first author and keywords in PubMed might find a published version. The published version is the stronger citation if it exists.
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.
On post #43 — 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.
post #47 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
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.
post #50 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Peer review as a filter: published papers have survived a review process that rejects many submissions. Preprints have not. Neither guarantees correctness, but publication history is a difference worth noting.
For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.
Coming back to post #52, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
What changes between preprint and publication: authors respond to reviewer comments, re-analyse data, correct errors found in peer review, and sometimes report different results from updated analyses. The published version is not the same as the preprint.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Conference abstracts as evidence: the weakest common citation
On the subject in the title: Conference abstracts as evidence: the weakest common citation Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022). Please read it before…
|
+1 | 5 | 2k | 9mo |
|
[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 | |
|
How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work
How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. I have seen SCALE ( N Engl J Med , 2015) cited in support of a…
|
+112 | 119 | 1.3k | 2y |
|
Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part
Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Session topic: SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016). Please…
|
+38 | 42 | 863 | 22mo |
|
Preprint servers and what screening they do
Preprint servers and what screening they do — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have seen FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024) cited in support of a claim I do not think it…
|
+95 | 106 | 5.6k | 4mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Why catalogue breadth is not evidence of anything — what changed since
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why catalogue breadth is not evidence of anything — what changed since Session topic: SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022). Please read it before…
|
+62 | 66 | 26k | 10mo |
|
Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold? Comparing STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021) with SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med ,…
|
+70 | 76 | 4.8k | 15h |
|
Reading a preclinical wound-healing model and its relevance to a human tendon — a second dataset
Reading a preclinical wound-healing model and its relevance to a human tendon — a second dataset — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have seen LEADER ( N Engl J Med , 2016)…
|
+64 | 69 | 27k | 4mo |
|
BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not
BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have seen LEADER ( N Engl J Med , 2016) cited in support of a…
|
+44 | 48 | 3k | 10mo |
|
Reading a combination trial: attributing effect to components
On the subject in the title: Reading a combination trial: attributing effect to components Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: PIONEER 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2019). Please read it before…
|
4 | 19k | 11mo |