Evidence · Preprints

Coming back to: Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part

Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size preprint

Under review

Under review. A claim in this topic has been challenged and a moderator has asked for a source. The status is a label, not a judgement, and it is removed when the source arrives or the claim is withdrawn.

g.danquahTL220 Feb 2026#1

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 that has not been reviewed.

I want to reference a preprint in a maintained document. The convention I understand is to label the status in the sentence itself rather than in a footnote, and to record the date the version was checked.

Is that the whole convention, or is there a further step for the case where the preprint is later published with different numbers?

58 likes 5mo

i.balogunTL223 Feb 2026#2

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

This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.

0 likes 5mo

dexa_twice_yearlyTL3Regular26 Feb 2026#3

i.balogun, post #2: A preprint with the data and code attached is frequently more checkable than a published paper without them. Reviewed and reproducible are different properties. This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again. Go to post

Picking up the opening post: that is the part I would want checked first.

The honest position on most preprints in this field is that they are interesting and provisional, and that saying both is not fence-sitting.

I have left out the parts I could not verify.

6 likes in reply to #2 5mo

h.friskTL21 Mar 2026#4

On post #2 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.

16 likes 5mo

bias_varianceTL4Biostatistician3 Mar 2026#5

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

0 likes 5mo

m.steinerTL25 Mar 2026#6

I had written a reply contradicting post #2 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

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.

Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.

1 like 5mo

f.demirTL2Regular7 Mar 2026#7

h.frisk, post #4: On post #2 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification. 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. Go to post

Adding the measurement that post #4 says would settle 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.

10 likes in reply to #4 5mo

a.iyerTL29 Mar 2026#8

m.steiner, post #6: I had written a reply contradicting post #2 and deleted it. Here is what survived. 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. Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up. Go to post

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.

22 likes in reply to #6 5mo

compounding_ruthTL4Pharmacist11 Mar 2026#9

f.demir, post #7: Adding the measurement that post #4 says would settle 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. Go to post

Post #8 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

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.

0 likes in reply to #7 5mo

h.delgadoTL213 Mar 2026 · edited#10

compounding_ruth, post #9: Post #8 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition. 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. Go to post

Where I part company with post #6, and it is a narrow parting.

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.

3 likes in reply to #9 5mo

d.petrescuTL215 Mar 2026#11

Worth separating two things that post #9 runs together.

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.

The confident version of this sentence would be wrong, so here is the hedged one.

2 likes 4mo

j.hartmannTL216 Mar 2026#12

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.

Worth reading the earlier posts in this thread before acting on mine.

0 likes 4mo

PSkarbekTL318 Mar 2026#13

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.

b.restrepoTL220 Mar 2026#14

g.danquah, post #1: 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 that has not been reviewed. I want to reference a preprint in a maintained document. The convention I understand is to label the… Go to post

Post #12 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

The honest position on most preprints in this field is that they are interesting and provisional, and that saying both is not fence-sitting.

12 likes in reply to #1 4mo

buffer_marginTL3Regular22 Mar 2026#15

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.

Marking that as an opinion rather than a finding.

4 likes 4mo

k.agyemanTL223 Mar 2026#16

Peer review catches some things reliably — missing methods, unsupported conclusions, statistical mistakes of the obvious kind — and misses others routinely. Knowing which is which makes preprint reading easier.

I would put the burden of proof on the interesting explanation, not the dull one.

0 likes 4mo

n.torrenceTL3Regular25 Mar 2026#17

Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long.

0 likes in reply to #6 4mo

mi.almeidaTL227 Mar 2026 · edited#18

Post #16 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

The honest position on most preprints in this field is that they are interesting and provisional, and that saying both is not fence-sitting.

I would be glad to be shown a cleaner way of putting this.

18 likes in reply to #2 4mo

j.petrovTL228 Mar 2026 · edited#19

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.

I would be interested in a counterexample if anyone has one.

7 likes 4mo

KLindqvistTL4 Moderator30 Mar 2026#20

Seconded. It reads as careful rather than confident, which is the right register.

1 like 4mo

n.lehtinenTL231 Mar 2026#21

Reading rather than contributing, but this is the most useful thread I have found on it.

15 likes 4mo

a.ibarraTL22 Apr 2026#22

n.torrence, post #17: Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long. Go to post

Sample size and pre-registration are checkable in a preprint exactly as in a paper, and they carry the same weight.

30 likes in reply to #17 4mo

k.roosTL23 Apr 2026#23

dexa_twice_yearly, post #3: Picking up the opening post: that is the part I would want checked first. The honest position on most preprints in this field is that they are interesting and provisional, and that saying both is not fence-sitting. I have left out the parts I could not verify. Go to post

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.

1 like in reply to #3 4mo

l.dziedzicTL25 Apr 2026#24

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.

One case, stated as one case.

6 likes 4mo

d.oyelaranTL3Pharmacist6 Apr 2026 · edited#25

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

22 likes 4mo

h.vargaTL28 Apr 2026#26

The honest position on most preprints in this field is that they are interesting and provisional, and that saying both is not fence-sitting.

This is where my knowledge stops and I would rather mark the edge than blur it.

0 likes 4mo

KLindqvistTL4 Moderator9 Apr 2026#27

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.

The short answer was in the first line; everything after is the working.

2 likes in reply to #6 4mo

k.laurentTL211 Apr 2026#28

I had written a reply contradicting post #24 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

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.

I have seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge.

10 likes 4mo

i.brobergTL212 Apr 2026#29

a.ibarra, post #22: Sample size and pre-registration are checkable in a preprint exactly as in a paper, and they carry the same weight. Go to post

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.

Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so.

6 likes in reply to #22 4mo

KnowltonTL3Regular14 Apr 2026#30

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.

I would want a second opinion before relying on that.

16 likes in reply to #1 3mo

Sponsored Janoshik Analytical — independent third-party testingHPLC purity and mass-spectrometric identity on submitted samples, reported with the method stated. The laboratory most often cited in this community’s verification records.Independent testing → Sponsored GL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — synthesis, directFounded 1998. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, over 1,500 staff and 200-plus patents. Custom peptide synthesis and amino acid derivatives, with a batch certificate on every order.Custom synthesis →