The "under review" status pill and when a moderator applies it

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.

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

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 honest state of it as of this week.

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.

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

Answering the question post #60 raises rather than the one it answers.

Media coverage of preprints rarely mentions the status. That is where most of the downstream confusion in this subcategory originates.

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.

I have seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge.

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

Everything in post #88 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

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.