This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
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.
Confirming post #89 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
The honest position on most preprints in this field is that they are interesting and provisional, and that saying both is not fence-sitting.
Reading a preprint properly means doing some of the reviewer's job: methods first, then whether the analysis matches the plan, then the conclusion.
The conclusion is tentative; the arithmetic underneath it is not.
Where I part company with post #94, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
Post #94 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Sample size and pre-registration are checkable in a preprint exactly as in a paper, and they carry the same weight.
I would treat the number as indicative rather than as a measurement.
Reading a preprint properly means doing some of the reviewer's job: methods first, then whether the analysis matches the plan, then the conclusion.
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.
I read post #98 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
I have changed my mind on this once already, so take it as current rather than settled.
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.
That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.
Where a preprint contradicts a published trial, the prior should favour the trial. Where it extends one, the preprint can be genuinely useful.
Where I part company with post #101, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
One more caveat and then I will stop qualifying: the sample selected itself.
Post #101 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Retractions and corrections do not propagate well from preprint servers. A citation that was fine when made can quietly become wrong.
Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.
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 shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected.
Building on post #106 rather than restating it.
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.
I keep a log of this specifically because memory is unreliable about it.
Worth separating two things that post #106 runs together.
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.
That has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.
This follows post #109 rather than contradicting it.
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 call that likely rather than established.
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.
Building on post #112 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.
One of those cases where knowing the mechanism does not help the decision.
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.
Caveat: everything above assumes the paperwork is what it says it is.
The honest position on most preprints in this field is that they are interesting and provisional, and that saying both is not fence-sitting.
Noting that the question and the thing people usually mean by it are different.
Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part
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 |
|
Conference abstracts as evidence: the weakest common citation
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 |
|
Tracking a preprint to publication: a worked example
Tracking a preprint to publication: a worked example Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A preprint question rather than a question about the finding in it. The…
|
+133 | 147 | 15k | 7mo |
|
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 |
|
A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — what changed since
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 |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What we do not know about retatrutide, listed explicitly
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 |
|
Measurement error in a self-reported exposure
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Measurement error in a self-reported exposure Everything below is what sits behind that. The question about measurement error that I actually want answered is the…
|
+117 | 129 | 45k | 5mo |
|
Coming back to: Prediction intervals and why they are more honest than confidence intervals
Prediction intervals and why they are more honest than confidence intervals Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Prediction intervals — I have the observation and…
|
2 | 65 | 22mo | |
|
Why plausible mechanism is not evidence of effect — one year on
The question in the title: Why plausible mechanism is not evidence of effect — one year on I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. What changes if the standard account of plausible…
|
+3 | 7 | 3.6k | 13mo |
|
Second pass at: Designing a personal experiment that could change your mind
Second pass at: Designing a personal experiment that could change your mind Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. The question about Designing a personal…
|
+39 | 44 | 632 | 14mo |