This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
This follows post #118 rather than contradicting it.
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.
I read post #120 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
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.
Coming back to post #124, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Worth separating two things that post #127 runs together.
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 #131 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.
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.
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.
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 #135 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I read post #142 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
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.
Picking up post #144: 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.
Coming back to post #146, 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.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning — does this still hold?
The question in the title: Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning — does this still hold? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. I have seen LEADER…
|
+103 | 115 | 24k | 10mo |
|
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 |
|
About the Preprints category
Unrefereed work, clearly labelled as such, with the usual caveats stated once and taken seriously. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded…
|
+3 | 7 | 14k | 3mo |
|
When a preprint is the best available evidence and we say so
When a preprint is the best available evidence and we say so — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. I have seen SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med , 2021) cited in…
|
+148 | 160 | 31k | 11mo |
|
Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning
On the subject in the title: Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning Working notes rather than a conclusion. I have seen SELECT ( N Engl J Med , 2023) cited in support of a…
|
2 | 467 | 4mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand
Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Comparing SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016) with STEP 8 ( JAMA , 2022)…
|
3 | 11k | 9h | |
|
Selection into a registry and what it does to the estimate — a second dataset
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Selection into a registry and what it does to the estimate — a second dataset Everything below is what sits behind that. Session topic: SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024).…
|
+28 | 32 | 1.3k | 1d |
|
TB-500 and thymosin beta-4: the fragment versus the protein
TB-500 and thymosin beta-4: the fragment versus the protein Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021) cited in support of a…
|
+107 | 118 | 22k | 11mo |
|
Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning — does this still hold?
The question in the title: Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning — does this still hold? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. I have seen LEADER…
|
+103 | 115 | 24k | 10mo |
|
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 |