Coming back to: Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part

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 that has not been reviewed.

I want to reference a preprint in a maintained document. The convention I understand is to label the status in the sentence itself rather than in a footnote, and to record the date the version was checked.

Is that the whole convention, or is there a further step for the case where the preprint is later published with different numbers?

Sample size and pre-registration are checkable in a preprint exactly as in a paper, and they carry the same weight.

Thank you — that answers what I came here to find out.

That is consistent with mine, for whatever one more account is worth.

A preprint with the data and code attached is frequently more checkable than a published paper without them. Reviewed and reproducible are different properties.

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

Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.

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.

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.

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