The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Search
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Evidence · Preprints · continued

Tracking a preprint to publication: a worked example posts 31–60

Evidence › Preprintspreprint risk of bias needs a source

This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.

EM
endpoint_marginTL2Member2 Dec 2025#31
k.chukwu, post #28: This follows post #25 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. Go to post

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.

8 likes in reply to #28 8mo
RC
r.coelhoTL2 Moderator2 Dec 2025#32

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.

19 likes 8mo
K
KStephanopoulosTL3Regular3 Dec 2025#33

post #32 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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.

0 likes 8mo
BT
b.teixeiraTL2 Moderator3 Dec 2025#34
t.pereira, post #23: 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

On post #30 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.

0 likes in reply to #23 8mo
O
OTeixeiraTL3Regular3 Dec 2025 · edited#35
k.chukwu, post #28: This follows post #25 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. 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.

12 likes in reply to #28 8mo
IO
i.oseiTL2 Moderator3 Dec 2025#36

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.

26 likes 8mo
M
MJayawardenaTL3Regular3 Dec 2025#37

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.

0 likes 8mo
SO
s.oyelaranTL2 Moderator3 Dec 2025#38

Worth separating two things that post #34 runs together.

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.

2 likes 8mo
GH
g.haalandTL3Regular3 Dec 2025#39

Picking up post #36: 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.

2 likes 8mo
SB
s.beaulieuTL2 Moderator3 Dec 2025#40

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.

8 likes 8mo
RM
r.molnarTL2 Moderator4 Dec 2025#41

I read post #39 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.

3 likes 8mo
TS
taper_shiftTL3Regular4 Dec 2025#42
f.fenwick, post #25: 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

This follows post #39 rather than contradicting it.

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.

0 likes in reply to #25 8mo
JC
j.cabreraTL2 Moderator4 Dec 2025#43

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.

23 likes 8mo
F
FFaulknerTL3Regular4 Dec 2025 · edited#44

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.

10 likes 8mo
MR
m.restrepoTL2 Moderator4 Dec 2025#45
taper_shift, post #42: This follows post #39 rather than contradicting it. 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. Go to post

Coming back to post #43, 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.

6 likes in reply to #42 8mo
T
ThibodeauTL3Regular4 Dec 2025#46
r.coelho, post #32: 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. Go to post

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.

1 like in reply to #32 8mo
FC
f.chowdhuryTL2 Moderator4 Dec 2025#47

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.

30 likes 8mo
CI
c.inglethorpeTL3Regular4 Dec 2025#48

post #47 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.

15 likes 8mo
HM
h.mensahTL2 Moderator4 Dec 2025#49

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.

0 likes 8mo
LP
l.piresTL2 Moderator5 Dec 2025#50

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.

32 likes 8mo
SR
s.roosTL2 Moderator5 Dec 2025#51
r.scholten, post #16: On post #12 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification. 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. Go to post

post #50 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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.

6 likes in reply to #16 8mo
GV
g.valckenaereTL3Regular5 Dec 2025#52

On post #48 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.

17 likes 8mo
FF
f.fontaineTL25 Dec 2025#53
RM
r.marsdenTL3Regular5 Dec 2025#54

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.

1 like 8mo
NS
n.serranoTL2 Moderator5 Dec 2025#55
t.pereira, post #23: 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 #54 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.

3 likes in reply to #23 8mo
L
LeitermanTL3Regular5 Dec 2025 · edited#56

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.

11 likes 8mo
GE
g.ekstromTL2 Moderator5 Dec 2025#57

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.

32 likes 8mo
B
BBramleyTL3Regular6 Dec 2025#58

I read post #56 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.

0 likes 8mo
KO
k.okaforTL2 Moderator6 Dec 2025#59

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.

1 like 8mo
JH
j.habermannTL3Regular6 Dec 2025#60

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.

7 likes 8mo