Topic summary

A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication

Evidence › Preprints preprint needs a source effect size Wiki Closed

This is a generated summary. It shows the 9 most-liked posts from a topic of 96, 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.

c.niemelTL3Regular24 Jul 2025#2

Confirming the opening post from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

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 Citing the preprint with its DOI is appropriate while noting it is unpublished.

Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.

28 likes 12mo

m.ndiayeTL23 Aug 2025#9

Where I part company with post #7, and it is a narrow parting.

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.

29 likes 12mo

e.bakkenTL222 Aug 2025#27

Screening on a preprint server is minimal and is not review. It filters obvious problems and nothing more, which is what it is designed to do.

28 likes 11mo

e.iyerTL230 Aug 2025#35

t.verhoeven, post #19: Version numbers on a preprint server matter. Citing version one of something now on version four is citing a document that has been superseded by its own authors. Go to post

If you cite a preprint in a maintained document here, the convention is to label it in the sentence and to note the check date. The document review will catch the update.

32 likes in reply to #19 11mo

KLindqvistTL4 Moderator12 Sep 2025#50

l.dziedzic, post #45: Where numbers change between preprint and published version, the changes are not random. They tend toward a smaller effect and a more carefully hedged claim. Go to post

Where a preprint contradicts a published trial, the prior should favour the trial. Where it extends one, the preprint can be genuinely useful.

33 likes in reply to #45 10mo

RodriguesTL3Regular14 Sep 2025#53

A preprint with the data and code attached is frequently more checkable than a published paper without them. Reviewed and reproducible are different properties.

Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.

28 likes 10mo

r.ekstromTL226 Sep 2025#68

Adding a data point of agreement rather than a data point.

29 likes 10mo

a.westergaardTL3Regular30 Sep 2025#72

Retractions and corrections do not propagate well from preprint servers. A citation that was fine when made can quietly become wrong.

Genuinely open to being wrong about this one.

31 likes 10mo

bench_entryTL3Regular8 Oct 2025#83

Post #81 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.

Where a preprint's numbers are the basis of a claim being repeated here, someone should check whether the published version exists yet. That check is nearly always overdue.

32 likes 10mo

Read the full topic (96 posts)

This topic was referenced in

Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning — does this still hold?Evidence › Preprints · 115 replies

This topic was closed 180 days after the last reply. Closing is automatic for quiet topics so that a settled answer does not collect new questions underneath it. If you have a follow-up, open a new topic and link back to this one — that keeps both readable and gives your question its own title.

Moved from Study critique by t.vasquez. Category placement is not obvious from outside and getting it wrong is expected. This topic will get better answers here. The move is recorded in the public log citing R7.

Suggested topics

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size preprint needs a source How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Reading an unrefereed manuscript properly, and asking whether I…	+112	119	1.3k	2y
When a preprint is the best available evidence and we say so Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size preprint Solved 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. A preprint question rather than a question about the…	+148	160	31k	11mo
Coming back to: Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size preprint Under review 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. A question about how this site should cite something…	+109	116	36k	2d
Revisiting: How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work Evidence › Preprints needs a source risk of bias preprint effect size Solved Revisiting: How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Reading an unrefereed manuscript properly, and asking…	+31	35	7k	1d
Tracking a preprint to publication: a worked example — the long version Evidence › Preprints risk of bias preprint effect size 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. A preprint question rather than a question about…	+38	47	560	22mo

Related topics — sharing the tags preprint, needs a source, effect size

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not Compounds › Repair & healing peptides observational data preprint BPC-157 needs a source 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 would like to know what people here actually do about BPC-157,…	+44	48	3k	10mo
Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size needs a source preprint Pinned On the subject in the title: Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning Working notes rather than a conclusion. A preprint question rather than a question about the finding in it.…		2	467	4mo
Tirzepatide's shorter half-life and its one practical consequence Compounds › Tirzepatide SURPASS programme randomised trial effect size tirzepatide Wiki On the subject in the title: Tirzepatide's shorter half-life and its one practical consequence Working notes rather than a conclusion. Documentation question rather than a pharmacological one, but about this…	+18	29	20k	8mo
Waist circumference technique and its repeatability Outcomes › Progress reports data table long read effect size DXA Waist circumference technique and its repeatability — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin waist circumference technique down and I want…	+55	60	11k	5mo
Coming back to: Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size preprint Under review 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. A question about how this site should cite something…	+109	116	36k	2d