KForsberg, post #8: Seconded. It reads as careful rather than confident, which is the right register. Go to post
That is the distinction I keep failing to hold on to. Written down now.
Evidence · Preprints · continued
Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part posts 31–43
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
glossary_check, post #16: 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. Adding it because I spent an afternoon working it out and nobody should have to twice. 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.
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 one dataset and I would not build a rule on it.
0 likes 22mo
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.
Worth reading the earlier posts in this thread before acting on mine.
0 likes 22mo
a.vestergaard, post #13: A preprint with the data and code attached is frequently more checkable than a published paper without them. Reviewed and reproducible are different properties. For what it is worth, the same held on the two occasions I checked. 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.
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 holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.
13 likes 22mo
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 Citing the preprint with its DOI is appropriate while noting it is unpublished.
That is the version I use. It may not be the version that is correct.
26 likes 22mo
Where I part company with post #34, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
0 likes 22mo
j.solberg, post #3: Coming back to the opening post, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer. 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. It cost nothing to check and would have cost something not to. 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.
Marking that as an opinion rather than a finding.
This is the answer, and the reason it is the answer is the more useful part.
0 likes 22mo
Taking post #39 at face value and following it one step further.
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.
30 likes 22mo
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.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
10 likes 22mo
This topic was referenced in
- Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoningEvidence › Preprints · 2 replies
- Revisiting: How this community labels and discusses unrefereed workEvidence › Preprints · 35 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[2026 update] Conference abstracts as evidence: the weakest common citation
Conference abstracts as evidence: the weakest common citation — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Reading an unrefereed manuscript properly, and asking whether I am doing it…
|
2 | 48k | 7mo | |
|
Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning
On the subject in the title: Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning Working notes rather than a conclusion. A preprint question rather than a question about the finding in it.…
|
2 | 467 | 4mo | |
|
How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work
How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Reading an unrefereed manuscript properly, and asking whether I…
|
+112 | 119 | 1.3k | 2y |
|
Tracking a preprint to publication: a worked example — the long version
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Tracking a preprint to publication: a worked example — the long version Everything below is what sits behind that. A preprint question rather than a question about…
|
+38 | 47 | 560 | 22mo |
|
Preprint servers and what screening they do
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 needs a source, risk of bias, preprint
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Tracking semaglutide's approved indications across jurisdictions, dated — does this still hold?
Tracking semaglutide's approved indications across jurisdictions, dated — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Practical question…
|
+58 | 62 | 49k | 20mo |
|
Regression to the mean in progress reports
On the subject in the title: Regression to the mean in progress reports Working notes rather than a conclusion. Something about regression does not reconcile and I would like a second pair of eyes before I…
|
+30 | 34 | 49k | 12mo |
|
Absence of evidence and evidence of absence
Absence of evidence and evidence of absence Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Asking about absence of evidence on behalf of the question I keep seeing asked…
|
+16 | 20 | 3.9k | 5mo |
|
Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove
On the subject in the title: Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021). Please read it before posting; the…
|
+61 | 65 | 2k | 13mo |
|
Why plausible mechanism is not evidence of effect
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why plausible mechanism is not evidence of effect What changes if the standard account of plausible mechanism is wrong? I ask because I have been…
|
+14 | 18 | 57k | 13mo |