Topic summary

Tracking a preprint to publication: a worked example — the long version

Evidence › Preprints risk of bias preprint effect size

This is a generated summary. It shows the 7 most-liked posts from a topic of 48, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.

an.kirchnerTL2 Moderator31 May 2024#4

erratum_file, post #3: Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first. 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. Go to post

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.

30 likes in reply to #3 2.2y

glossary_deskTL3Regular27 Jun 2024#11

s.perrin, post #6: 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. Go to post

Coming back to post #9, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

27 likes in reply to #6 2.1y

glossary_checkTL2Member14 Aug 2024#26

taper_file, post #15: 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. Go to post

I read post #24 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

29 likes in reply to #15 23mo

v.salgadoTL2 Moderator5 Sep 2024#34

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.

27 likes 23mo

p.friskTL2 Moderator19 Sep 2024 · edited#39

g.danquah, post #21: Picking up post #18: 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. Go to post

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.

26 likes in reply to #21 22mo

logbook_erinTL3Regular24 Sep 2024#41

s.kravchenko, post #8: I read post #6 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite. 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. Go to post

post #40 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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.

23 likes in reply to #8 22mo

a.finnegan_rdTL2Dietitian4 Oct 2024#45

post #44 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

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.

31 likes 22mo

Read the full topic (48 posts)

Suggested topics

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part Evidence › Preprints needs a source risk of bias preprint effect size 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
The "under review" status pill and when a moderator applies it Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size preprint Posting this under the heading it deserves: The "under review" status pill and when a moderator applies it Everything below is what sits behind that. Session topic: SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024). Please read it…	+96	119	17k	3mo
A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication Evidence › Preprints preprint needs a source effect size Wiki Closed A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Session topic: SURMOUNT-2 ( Lancet , 2023). Please read it before posting;…	+90	95	21k	9mo
When a preprint is the best available evidence and we say so — a second dataset Evidence › Preprints preprint risk of bias needs a source Solved 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
Preprint servers and what screening they do Evidence › Preprints preprint effect size needs a source 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

Related topics — sharing the tags risk of bias, preprint, effect size

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Molecular mass of semaglutide and why the figure differs between sources — does this still hold? Compounds › Semaglutide effect size type 2 diabetes STEP programme SELECT trial Solved Closed Molecular mass of semaglutide and why the figure differs between sources — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Comparing SURPASS-2 (…	+94	102	14k	19mo
What we do not know about retatrutide, listed explicitly Compounds › Retatrutide retatrutide effect size preprint TRIUMPH programme The question in the title: What we do not know about retatrutide, listed explicitly I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Comparing FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024) with SURMOUNT-OSA…	+106	113	4.8k	17mo
A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — what changed since Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size needs a source 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
Second pass at: What pooling buys you and what it destroys Evidence › Meta-analyses risk of bias meta-analysis heterogeneity Posting this under the heading it deserves: Second pass at: What pooling buys you and what it destroys Everything below is what sits behind that. I have seen STEP 8 ( JAMA , 2022) cited in support of a claim…	+32	36	19k	4mo
Analytical identity of BPC-157: a 15-mer with a simple mass Compounds › Repair & healing peptides BPC-157 observational data needs a source preprint Analytical identity of BPC-157: a 15-mer with a simple mass Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Comparing SURMOUNT-OSA ( N Engl J Med , 2024) with STEP 2 (…	+3	7	5.2k	10mo