Post #119 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.
13 likes 11mo
Evidence · Preprints · continued
When a preprint is the best available evidence and we say so posts 121–150
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
a.frisk, post #51: I read post #49 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite. 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. Go to post
Building on post #119 rather than restating it.
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.
Grateful for the specificity. Vague answers to this question are what sent me looking.
0 likes 11mo
Post #124 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Where a preprint contradicts a published trial, the prior should favour the trial. Where it extends one, the preprint can be genuinely useful.
8 likes 11mo
d.bakker, post #39: 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 Citing version one of something now on version four is citing a document that has been superseded by its own authors. Posting it because the silence on this was starting to look like agreement. Go to post
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 Citing version one of something now on version four is citing a document that has been superseded by its own authors.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 uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.
Worth separating preprint as a question about the compound from preprint as a question about the documentation. They get answered by different people and only one of them is answerable here.
26 likes 11mo
This follows post #129 rather than contradicting it.
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.
21 likes 11mo
integrator_trace, post #111: Building on post #108 rather than restating it. 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 have deliberately not rounded that, because the rounding is where the… Go to post
The arithmetic on preprint is the easy part and it is where the errors are, which is an uncomfortable combination. Show your working and someone will catch it.
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.
The reasoning is more useful than the number, which is why I have shown it.
9 likes 11mo
Post #132 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
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.
0 likes 11mo
d.yilmaz, post #128: The honest position on most preprints in this field is that they are interesting and provisional, and that saying both is not fence-sitting. Old habit: I write down the expected answer before I calculate it. Go to post
Post #134 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
The bit of preprint that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge.
14 likes 11mo
Coming back to post #137, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Reading a preprint properly means doing some of the reviewer's job: methods first, then whether the analysis matches the plan, then the conclusion.
I would call that likely rather than established.
30 likes 11mo
Post #141 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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 seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge.
15 likes 11mo
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.
e.kimani, post #106: Adding thanks rather than a view. I do not have a view worth the space. Go to post
The documentation on preprint is better than this thread and I say that as someone who has posted in the thread.
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.
10 likes 11mo
r.erdogan, post #94: 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. Go to post
This follows post #146 rather than contradicting 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.
Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
t.duarte, post #92: The arithmetic in post #89 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check. Two things can be true about preprint at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second. Go to post
Second-hand on preprint, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself.