How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
I had written a reply contradicting post #60 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Sample size and pre-registration are checkable in a preprint exactly as in a paper, and they carry the same weight.
That is where I would start, not where I would stop.
Picking up post #62: that is the part I would want checked first.
Distinguishing three things in the community labels discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.
The strongest argument against my own position on community labels, stated as well as I can state it, since nobody else has yet.
Reading rather than contributing, but this is the most useful thread I have found on 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.
A qualification I should have led with rather than closed on.
This follows post #66 rather than contradicting it.
Adding a null result on community labels. I looked, carefully, and found nothing, and null results deserve posting precisely because they never are.
Worth separating two things that post #64 runs together.
Where the community labels reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.
Post #66 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
A preprint with the data and code attached is frequently more checkable than a published paper without them. Reviewed and reproducible are different properties.
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.
The variance between people here is larger than the effect being discussed.
That reframing is the whole thing. The facts I already had.
Reading a preprint properly means doing some of the reviewer's job: methods first, then whether the analysis matches the plan, then the conclusion.
Everything in post #71 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
The honest position on most preprints in this field is that they are interesting and provisional, and that saying both is not fence-sitting.
That is the version I use. It may not be the version that is correct.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
The reason community labels is hard to answer is that the obvious measurement and the relevant quantity are not the same thing, and substituting one for the other is silent.
Taking post #75 at face value and following it one step further.
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.
Filing a mild objection to the consensus on community labels. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit.
The arithmetic in post #79 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Unrefereed work is not worthless. A great deal of it survives review substantially unchanged. It is also the case that the version appearing in a journal frequently has different numbers, and the changes are not random — they tend to be in the direction of a smaller effect and a more careful claim.
The arithmetic in post #80 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
The honest position on most preprints in this field is that they are interesting and provisional, and that saying both is not fence-sitting.
It reads as pedantry until the day it does not.
No notes. Posting so the count is not one.
Reframing community labels slightly, because I think the disagreement is about the question rather than the answer. If the question is "does it happen", yes. If it is "how often", nobody here knows.
Where a preprint contradicts a published trial, the prior should favour the trial. Where it extends one, the preprint can be genuinely useful.
This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.
Community labels: I would want to see the raw numbers rather than the summary before agreeing. Summaries lose exactly the information that would settle this.
Post #84 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
The claim about community labels upthread is stronger than its source supports. I have read the source. The source says "associated with" and the post says "causes".
Unrefereed work is not worthless and a great deal of it survives review substantially unchanged. That is the accurate framing and it is not a licence to treat it as final.
I read post #86 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Offering a way to settle community labels rather than another opinion about it. Two measurements, taken the same way, a fortnight apart. If the difference is within the noise, the question was not answerable at this precision.