Evidence · Preprints

About the Preprints category

Evidence › Preprints preprint risk of bias needs a source

Pinned Wiki

j.mwangiTL4 Moderator28 Nov 2025#1

Community wiki post. Any member at trust level 3 or above can edit this post; every edit is recorded. Last edited by hana.sato on 5 Jul 2026.

23 Dec 2025 — j.mwangi: Clarified the distinction that was causing repeat questions below.
10 Dec 2025 — mira.patel: Added the worked example and a unit label to the table header.
5 Jul 2026 — hana.sato: Replaced an unsourced figure with the published one and cited it.

Editors: j.mwangi, mira.patel, hana.sato

Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.

Unrefereed work, clearly labelled as such, with the usual caveats stated once and taken seriously.

This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its author and a note. If the scope described here has drifted from what actually gets posted, edit it rather than starting a topic about it.

What belongs here

Questions specific to preprints, with the units and the context stated.
Reports and datasets, with the collection method stated.
Disagreement about the substance, conducted in public.

What belongs elsewhere

Anything urgent belongs in Safety, immediately, and not here.
Anything about how this site works belongs in Meta.
Requests for a maintained page belong in Wiki requests.

Before posting, it is worth checking the documentation commons and this category's tag pages. A great deal of what gets asked here has a maintained answer with a review date on it, which is more reliable than a two-year-old reply.

0 likes 8mo

dr_okonkwoTL4 Moderator2 Jan 2026#2

Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.

Moderation notes for this category, so that nothing about how it is run is a surprise.

Topics get moved into and out of here regularly. A move is not a judgement — the category tree is not obvious from outside and putting a question in the wrong place is expected. When I move something I say so in the topic and the action appears in the public log with the guideline cited.

The two guidelines that come up most often in this category are R2, on supplying a source when asked, and R7, on category placement. Neither is used punitively.

25 likes 7mo

NHuddlestonTL1Member28 Jan 2026#3

As a member rather than staff: the most useful thing I did when I started reading this category was to work through the tag pages rather than the topic list. The topic list shows you what is recent. The tags show you what is settled.

12 likes 6mo

i.beaulieuTL220 Feb 2026#4

Suggestion for the wiki post above: it would be worth linking the two or three most-referenced topics in this category directly, since new members reliably ask for exactly those. Happy to make the edit myself if nobody objects, with a revision note.

4 likes 5mo

s.perrinTL213 Mar 2026#5

dr_okonkwo, post #2: Moderation notes for this category, so that nothing about how it is run is a surprise. Topics get moved into and out of here regularly. A move is not a judgement — the category tree is not obvious from outside and putting a question in the wrong place is expected. When I move something I say so in the topic and the action appears in the… Go to post

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.

Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.

0 likes in reply to #2 5mo

glossary_checkTL22 Apr 2026#6

Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above

Discussing preprints in this community: bring them in for early discussion, label them clearly as preprints, invite peer critique, and be prepared for the discussion to differ if the paper is later published differently.

I would hold that lightly until someone with a larger sample weighs in.

l.krastevTL221 Apr 2026#7

Worth separating two things that post #3 runs together.

Conference abstracts are weaker than preprints and get quoted with equal confidence. An abstract is a few hundred words with no methods section.

That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.

17 likes 3mo

glossary_deskTL3Regular10 May 2026#8

This follows post #7 rather than contradicting it.

The honest position on most preprints in this field is that they are interesting and provisional, and that saying both is not fence-sitting.

7 likes 3mo

Suggested topics

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
[2026 update] Conference abstracts as evidence: the weakest common citation Evidence › Preprints needs a source effect size preprint risk of bias Closed 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
Conference abstracts as evidence: the weakest common citation Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size needs a source On the subject in the title: Conference abstracts as evidence: the weakest common citation Working notes rather than a conclusion. Reading an unrefereed manuscript properly, and asking whether I am doing it…	+1	5	2k	9mo
Coming back to: Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size preprint Under review Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. A question about how this site should cite something…	+109	116	36k	2d
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
Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning — does this still hold? Evidence › Preprints preprint needs a source effect size Solved Under review The question in the title: Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning — does this still hold? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. A question about…	+103	115	24k	10mo

Related topics — sharing the tags preprint, risk of bias, needs a source

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
Second pass at: How to research a compound with no human data without deceiving yourself Compounds › Other compounds research use only custom synthesis needs a source mislabelling Second pass at: How to research a compound with no human data without deceiving yourself Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. The question about research a…	+64	71	2.5k	13mo
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
Reading a preclinical wound-healing model and its relevance to a human tendon — a second dataset Compounds › Repair & healing peptides observational data preprint BPC-157 Reading a preclinical wound-healing model and its relevance to a human tendon — a second dataset — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Posting a small dataset on Reading a…	+64	69	27k	4mo
Journal club: STEP 8 and the fairness of the comparator dose — a second dataset Evidence › Journal club risk of bias journal club effect size estimand Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: STEP 8 and the fairness of the comparator dose — a second dataset Everything below is what sits behind that. Posting a small dataset on STEP 8. It is…	+18	22	656	13h

Sponsored PeptideMeter — peptide analytics and supplier verificationPurity analysis and structured supplier verification, published as dated records rather than scores. Referenced throughout our sourcing documentation.View analytics →