Topic summary

Tracking a preprint to publication: a worked example — the long version

Evidence › Preprints risk of bias preprint effect size

This is a generated summary. It shows the 7 most-liked posts from a topic of 48, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.

an.kirchnerTL231 May 2024#4

erratum_file, post #3: Picking up the opening post: that is the part I would want checked first. 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. Go to post

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.

Written from notes rather than memory, which is why the numbers are specific.

30 likes in reply to #3 2.2y

glossary_deskTL3Regular27 Jun 2024#11

s.perrin, post #6: Where a preprint contradicts a published trial, the prior should favour the trial. Where it extends one, the preprint can be genuinely useful. Worth one more sentence than it usually gets. Go to post

I read post #9 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

Not the whole picture, but the part of it I can speak to.

27 likes in reply to #6 2.1y

glossary_checkTL2Member14 Aug 2024#26

taper_file, post #15: This settles it for me, at least until somebody posts a reason it should not. Go to post

Thank you — that answers what I came here to find out.

29 likes in reply to #15 23mo

v.salgadoTL25 Sep 2024#34

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.

27 likes 23mo

p.friskTL219 Sep 2024 · edited#39

g.danquah, post #21: Narrowing post #18, 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. On balance I think that is right, and I would not bet much on it. Go to post

Useful. I have added it to my own notes with the date on it.

26 likes in reply to #21 22mo

logbook_erinTL3Regular24 Sep 2024#41

s.kravchenko, post #8: Worth separating two things that post #6 runs together. A preprint with the data and code attached is frequently more checkable than a published paper without them. Reviewed and reproducible are different properties. Go to post

Confirming post #40 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

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.

23 likes in reply to #8 22mo

a.finnegan_rdTL2Dietitian4 Oct 2024#45

Post #44 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

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.

If anyone can point at the primary source I would be grateful.

31 likes 22mo

Read the full topic (48 posts)

Suggested topics

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part Evidence › Preprints needs a source risk of bias preprint effect size Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. A question about how this site should cite something…	+38	42	863	22mo
The "under review" status pill and when a moderator applies it Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size preprint 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
A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication Evidence › Preprints preprint needs a source effect size Wiki Closed A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A preprint question rather than a question about the finding in it. The…	+90	95	21k	9mo
When a preprint is the best available evidence and we say so — a second dataset Evidence › Preprints preprint risk of bias needs a source Solved When a preprint is the best available evidence and we say so — a second dataset I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. A preprint question rather than a…	+20	24	36k	14mo
Preprint servers and what screening they do Evidence › Preprints preprint effect size needs a source Preprint servers and what screening they do — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A preprint question rather than a question about the finding in it. The manuscript is on a…	+95	106	5.6k	4mo

Related topics — sharing the tags risk of bias, preprint, effect size

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Molecular mass of semaglutide and why the figure differs between sources — does this still hold? Compounds › Semaglutide effect size type 2 diabetes STEP programme SELECT trial Solved Closed Molecular mass of semaglutide and why the figure differs between sources — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Putting the numbers in…	+94	102	14k	19mo
What we do not know about retatrutide, listed explicitly Compounds › Retatrutide retatrutide effect size preprint TRIUMPH programme The question in the title: What we do not know about retatrutide, listed explicitly I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Setting out what I think I know about this compound and…	+106	113	4.8k	17mo
A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — what changed since Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size needs a source On the subject in the title: A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion. A preprint question rather than a question about the…	+3	7	125	8mo
Second pass at: What pooling buys you and what it destroys Evidence › Meta-analyses risk of bias meta-analysis heterogeneity Posting this under the heading it deserves: Second pass at: What pooling buys you and what it destroys Everything below is what sits behind that. Something about pooling buys does not reconcile and I would…	+32	36	19k	4mo
Analytical identity of BPC-157: a 15-mer with a simple mass Compounds › Repair & healing peptides BPC-157 observational data needs a source preprint Analytical identity of BPC-157: a 15-mer with a simple mass Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Something about analytical identity of BPC-157 does not reconcile…	+3	7	5.2k	10mo