Post #27 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Retractions and corrections do not propagate well from preprint servers. A citation that was fine when made can quietly become wrong.
9 likes 3mo
Evidence · Preprints · continued
Coming back to: Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Taking post #31 at face value and following it one step further.
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.
I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
2 likes 3mo
l.dziedzic, post #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. Go to post
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.
Where I would look next, rather than where I would stop.
n.torrence, post #17: Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long. Go to post
Reading a preprint properly means doing some of the reviewer's job: methods first, then whether the analysis matches the plan, then the conclusion.
It is the kind of thing that is obvious once and never again.
k.roos, post #23: 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 Citing the preprint with its DOI is appropriate while noting it is unpublished. Go to post
Thank you — that answers what I came here to find out.
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.
Nothing above should be read as advice about what anyone else should do.
20 likes 3mo
Post #39 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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 Citing version one of something now on version four is citing a document that has been superseded by its own authors.
That is all I can say without guessing.
9 likes 3mo
Knowlton, post #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. Go to post
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.
Post #40 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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.
If that reads as pedantic, it is, and it has saved me twice.
18 likes 3mo
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.
It is one reading of the data and not the only reasonable one.
0 likes 3mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
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.
Small point, but it is the one that usually catches people.
e.iyer, post #40: Post #39 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition. 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. That is all I can say without guessing. Go to post
Building on post #44 rather than restating it.
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.
That is consistent with mine, for whatever one more account is worth.
27 likes 3mo
h.oyelowo, post #35: Worth separating two things that post #31 runs together. Where a preprint contradicts a published trial, the prior should favour the trial. Where it extends one, the preprint can be genuinely useful. Go to post
Narrowing post #47, because the general version has more than one answer.
Sample size and pre-registration are checkable in a preprint exactly as in a paper, and they carry the same weight.
k.fonseca, post #47: Building on post #44 rather than restating it. 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. Go to post
Everything in post #47 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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 looked this up rather than remembered it, which is the right order.
Woodhouse, post #49: Narrowing post #47, because the general version has more than one answer. Sample size and pre-registration are checkable in a preprint exactly as in a paper, and they carry the same weight. Go to post
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.
Adding the measurement that post #53 says would settle it.
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.
7 likes 2mo
A preprint with the data and code attached is frequently more checkable than a published paper without them. Reviewed and reproducible are different properties.
25 likes 2mo
k.fonseca, post #47: Building on post #44 rather than restating it. 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. Go to post
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.
Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.
h.oyelowo, post #35: Worth separating two things that post #31 runs together. Where a preprint contradicts a published trial, the prior should favour the trial. Where it extends one, the preprint can be genuinely useful. Go to post
That is a fair summary of where the discussion has got to.
Coming back to post #57, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
0 likes 2mo