When a preprint is the best available evidence and we say so

Where the preprint reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.

The arithmetic in post #17 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

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

This is the version I would want a new member to read first.

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.

I would not lead a decision with this, but I would not ignore it either.

Worth separating two things that post #72 runs together.

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.

I am reporting what happened, not recommending it.

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

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.

That has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.

Coming back to post #137, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

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

I would call that likely rather than established.

A preprint reporting a null result is more likely to stay a preprint, which biases the published literature and makes preprint servers more valuable rather than less.

Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.