Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning — does this still hold? posts 91–116
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
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.
I keep a log of this specifically because memory is unreliable about it.
Agreed on all of that, and I have nothing to add to it.
On post #90 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Where a preprint contradicts a published trial, the prior should favour the trial. Where it extends one, the preprint can be genuinely useful.
I would be glad to be shown a cleaner way of putting this.
Author track record is a weak signal and it is a signal. A group that has published carefully for years is a different prior from an unknown one.
The right answer here may simply be that it has not been measured.
Coming back to post #94, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Speaking only to Citing a preprint as I have actually seen it, rather than as it is usually described: the effect is real, it is smaller than the thread suggests, and the variance between people is larger than the effect.
This follows post #96 rather than contradicting it.
Say it is a preprint in the first line rather than the last. Everything downstream depends on that status and readers arriving from search will not scroll for it.
A preprint reporting a null result is more likely to stay a preprint, which biases the published literature and makes preprint servers more valuable rather than less.
Post #96 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Two claims get bundled together under Citing a preprint and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
This follows post #98 rather than contradicting it.
Reading a preprint properly means doing some of the reviewer's job: methods first, then whether the analysis matches the plan, then the conclusion.
The conclusion is tentative; the arithmetic underneath it is not.
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.
I would rather say I do not know than round it up to an answer.
Noted, and I have changed what I was going to do on the strength of it.
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.
The disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed.
Narrowing post #106, because the general version has more than one answer.
If someone has run Citing a preprint properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet.
Everything in post #105 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
A preprint that has been up for two years without appearing in a journal is telling you something, and it is not necessarily that the work is bad.
Nothing above should be read as advice about what anyone else should do.
Nothing to add on the substance. Thank you for taking the question at face value.
Post #107 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Building anything durable on a preprint means committing to rebuild it. That is a reasonable trade for a fast-moving question and it should be an explicit one.
A qualification I should have led with rather than closed on.
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.
The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep.
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 am aware this is the third time this month I have made this point.
That is a cleaner way of putting what I was circling around.
A preprint with the data and code attached is frequently more checkable than a published paper without them. Reviewed and reproducible are different properties.
Say it is a preprint in the first line rather than the last. Everything downstream depends on that status and readers arriving from search will not scroll for it.
This topic was referenced in
- Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoningEvidence › Preprints · 2 replies
- Revisiting: How this community labels and discusses unrefereed workEvidence › Preprints · 35 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 Reading an unrefereed manuscript properly, and asking whether I am doing…
|
+18 | 23 | 21k | 2mo |
|
Tracking a preprint to publication: a worked example — the long version
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 |
|
[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. Reading an unrefereed manuscript properly, and asking whether I am doing it…
|
2 | 48k | 7mo | |
|
The "under review" status pill and when a moderator applies it
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. A question about how this site should cite something that…
|
+96 | 119 | 17k | 3mo |
|
Coming back to: Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part
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 |
Related topics — sharing the tags preprint, needs a source, effect size
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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. A preprint question rather than a question about the finding in it.…
|
2 | 467 | 4mo | |
|
Follow-up: Is "synergy" the right word for the combination data?
Is "synergy" the right word for the combination data? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Putting the numbers in the first post, because a question about…
|
2 | 41k | 14mo | |
|
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 |
|
[2026 update] Journal club: what we got wrong in an earlier session
Journal club: what we got wrong in an earlier session — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Bringing a claim rather than a paper, because the claim is the thing circulating.…
|
+5 | 9 | 4.2k | 1d |
|
Tirzepatide molecular mass and the charge states you would expect on ESI
Tirzepatide molecular mass and the charge states you would expect on ESI Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Tirzepatide molecular mass keeps being re-asked here…
|
+36 | 40 | 44k | 11mo |