This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
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 Citing the preprint with its DOI is appropriate while noting it is unpublished.
Posted with less confidence than the sentence structure implies.
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.
The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why.
Narrowing post #62, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
I would want to see it done twice before believing it once.
Everything in post #60 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Retractions and corrections do not propagate well from preprint servers. A citation that was fine when made can quietly become wrong.
A partial answer, offered because a partial answer beats none.
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 Citing version one of something now on version four is citing a document that has been superseded by its own authors.
Answering the question post #64 raises rather than the one it answers.
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.
This is the sort of thing that ought to be settled and apparently is not.
Picking up post #66: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
I would hold that lightly until someone with a larger sample weighs in.
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.
Nothing to add, except that this is the answer I would give if asked.
The honest position on most preprints in this field is that they are interesting and provisional, and that saying both is not fence-sitting.
I read post #72 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.
Post #72 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.
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.
Building on post #75 rather than restating it.
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.
Everything in post #75 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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.
Correct me on the arithmetic if it is wrong; I would rather know.
On post #75 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
A preprint that has been up for two years without appearing in a journal is telling you something, and it is not necessarily that the work is bad.
That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.
Picking up post #79: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.
Post #78 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline 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.
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.
Old habit: I write down the expected answer before I calculate it.
Post #84 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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.
Where I part company with post #82, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki.
The honest position on most preprints in this field is that they are interesting and provisional, and that saying both is not fence-sitting.
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.
Confirming post #88 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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.