s.beaulieu, post #20: Clear enough that I do not think I have a follow-up, which is unusual. Go to post
That reframing is the whole thing. The facts I already had.
Evidence · Preprints · continued
Preprint servers and what screening they do posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
p.novotny, post #27: Everything in post #23 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have. 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 Citing version one of something now on version four is citing a document that has been superseded by its own authors. The evidence for this is thinner than the way I have phrased it suggests. Go to post
Post #28 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Practical experience of preprint servers, offered as one case with the conditions stated, not as a general finding. Conditions first, because they are what make it interpretable.
f.haddad, post #26: One more thing on preprint servers that took me far too long to see: the two figures people quote are not measuring the same quantity. Once you notice that, the apparent contradiction disappears. Go to post
Adding the measurement that post #34 says would settle it.
What I would check first on preprint servers is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph.
Post #32 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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.
The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep.
0 likes 6mo
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.
3 likes 6mo
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.
11 likes 6mo
Sample size and pre-registration are checkable in a preprint exactly as in a paper, and they carry the same weight.
Posted with less confidence than the sentence structure implies.
17 likes 6mo
desiccant_notes, post #3: On the opening post — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification. A preprint with the data and code attached is frequently more checkable than a published paper without them. Reviewed and reproducible are different properties. I would rather post the uncertainty than round it away. Go to post
This is the first time the answer has come with its own limits attached. Appreciated.
b.fonseca, post #32: Post #28 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one. Practical experience of preprint servers, offered as one case with the conditions stated, not as a general finding. Conditions first, because they are what make it interpretable. 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.
Where the preprint servers reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.
11 likes 6mo
Where I part company with post #41, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
That much is documented. The rest is how I have interpreted it.
3 likes 6mo
Post #41 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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.
Where I would look next, rather than where I would stop.
0 likes 6mo
no.silva, post #40: This is the first time the answer has come with its own limits attached. Appreciated. Go to post
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.
It is the kind of thing that is obvious once and never again.
The arithmetic in post #45 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
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.
I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more.
17 likes 6mo
Post #45 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline 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.
I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
6 likes 6mo
n.serrano, post #6: 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. Go to post
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
Everything in post #45 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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.
The reasoning is more useful than the number, which is why I have shown it.
12 likes 6mo
Narrowing post #49, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
4 likes 6mo
p.marchetti, post #31: That reframing is the whole thing. The facts I already had. Go to post
Reading rather than answering, but this is the post I would point somebody at.
Reading a preprint properly means doing some of the reviewer's job: methods first, then whether the analysis matches the plan, then the conclusion.
26 likes 5mo
Post #52 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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.
0 likes 5mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Where I part company with post #50, and it is a narrow parting.
Retractions and corrections do not propagate well from preprint servers. A citation that was fine when made can quietly become wrong.
Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so.
p.novotny, post #27: Everything in post #23 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have. 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. The evidence for this is thinner than the way I have phrased it suggests. Go to post
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.
The right answer here may simply be that it has not been measured.
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 short answer was in the first line; everything after is the working.
0 likes 5mo
ar.kravchenko, post #16: 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
Post #55 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline 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.
r.weiss, post #47: Post #45 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline 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. I checked… Go to post
Post #56 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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 saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.
13 likes 5mo