The "under review" status pill and when a moderator applies it posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Media coverage of preprints rarely mentions the status. That is where most of the downstream confusion in this subcategory originates.
I would rather post the uncertainty than round it away.
Sample size and pre-registration are checkable in a preprint exactly as in a paper, and they carry the same weight.
I would call that likely rather than established.
Adding the measurement that post #31 says would settle it.
Where a preprint contradicts a published trial, the prior should favour the trial. Where it extends one, the preprint can be genuinely useful.
None of the above is medical advice and I am not qualified to give any.
On post #34 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Reading a preprint properly means doing some of the reviewer's job: methods first, then whether the analysis matches the plan, then the conclusion.
Adding it because I spent an afternoon working it out and nobody should have to twice.
Picking up post #37: that is the part I would want checked first.
Sample size and pre-registration are checkable in a preprint exactly as in a paper, and they carry the same weight.
Post #37 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline 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.
Adding it in case it saves somebody the afternoon it cost me.
Taking post #40 at face value and following it one step further.
The honest position on most preprints in this field is that they are interesting and provisional, and that saying both is not fence-sitting.
Post #38 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
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.
Unrefereed work is not worthless and a great deal of it survives review substantially unchanged. That is the accurate framing and it is not a licence to treat it as final.
Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
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.
Building on post #43 rather than restating it.
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 have no interest in any supplier named above.
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 have deliberately not rounded that, because the rounding is where the argument starts.
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.
This is the first time the answer has come with its own limits attached. Appreciated.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
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 the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.
Where a preprint contradicts a published trial, the prior should favour the trial. Where it extends one, the preprint can be genuinely useful.
One case, stated as one case.
Post #53 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.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Building on post #53 rather than restating 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.
This is where my knowledge stops and I would rather mark the edge than blur it.
Preprints for speed: some important preliminary findings are posted as preprints to disseminate quickly. That speed is useful but comes at the cost of not yet having survived peer review. The trade-off is real.
Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.
Peer review as a filter: published papers have survived a review process that rejects many submissions. Preprints have not. Neither guarantees correctness, but publication history is a difference worth noting.
Post #57 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
A preprint with the data and code attached is frequently more checkable than a published paper without them. Reviewed and reproducible are different properties.
Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.
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.
Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.