The "under review" status pill and when a moderator applies it posts 91–120

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.

Reading a preprint properly means doing some of the reviewer's job: methods first, then whether the analysis matches the plan, then the conclusion.

Answering the question post #105 raises rather than the one it answers.

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.

Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.

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.

Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.

Useful. I had the fact and not the reason, which turns out to be the important half.

Confirming post #108 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.

That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.

This follows post #108 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.

The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why.

Worth separating two things that post #110 runs together.

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

The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.

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.

Fine by me. I had wanted a stronger conclusion and there is not one available.

Taking post #112 at face value and following it one step further.

Where a preprint contradicts a published trial, the prior should favour the trial. Where it extends one, the preprint can be genuinely useful.

That is what the documentation says. What happens in practice is usually close.

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.

I would want to see it done twice before believing it once.

The most useful convention this subcategory has: state the status, state the version, state the date you checked. Three short clauses and the citation stays honest.

Everything in post #115 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

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

Posted with less confidence than the sentence structure implies.

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.

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.