The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Evidence · Preprints

A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — what changed since

BA
b.aaltoTL225 Jul 2025#1

On the subject in the title: A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion.

A preprint question rather than a question about the finding in it.

The manuscript is on a preprint server, dated, with a version number I have written down. It has not been through review and the authors say so in the header. What I cannot work out is how much weight that leaves it carrying.

I would like the reasoning rather than a rule. "Wait for publication" is not usable when the publication may be two years away and the question is now.

9 likes 12mo
RV
r.vukovicTL223 Aug 2025#2

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.

14 likes 11mo
KO
k.otieno_statsTL3Statistician13 Sep 2025 · edited#3

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.

Worth reading the earlier posts in this thread before acting on mine.

28 likes 10mo
ES
e.steinerTL21 Oct 2025#4
b.aalto, post #1: On the subject in the title: A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion. A preprint question rather than a question about the finding in it. The manuscript is on a preprint server, dated, with a version number I have written down. It has not been through… Go to post

Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.

0 likes in reply to #1 10mo
SS
system_suitabilityTL3Analytical chemist18 Oct 2025#5

Following this. I have the same question and no better information than the first post.

2 likes 9mo
NI
n.ibarraTL23 Nov 2025#6

Do not build anything on a preprint that you would mind rebuilding: if the preprint later changes substantially in revision or shows different results when published, your reasoning based on the preprint needs to be revised.

9 likes 9mo
PI
p.iyer_pharmdTL3Pharmacist19 Nov 2025#7

Post #6 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

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 put the burden of proof on the interesting explanation, not the dull one.

20 likes 8mo
ZO
z.okonkwoTL24 Dec 2025#8
k.otieno_stats, post #3: 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. Worth reading the earlier posts in… Go to post

Worth separating two things that post #6 runs together.

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.

Marking that as an opinion rather than a finding.

0 likes in reply to #3 8mo

Suggested topics

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
Preprint servers and what screening they do — the long version
On the subject in the title: Preprint servers and what screening they do — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. A preprint question rather than a question about the finding in it. The…
APNEYASSRM+7 11 26k 4mo
Tracking a preprint to publication: a worked example
Tracking a preprint to publication: a worked example Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A preprint question rather than a question about the finding in it. The…
VBUCRSDTSB+133 147 15k 7mo
[2026 update] Conference abstracts as evidence: the weakest common citation
Conference abstracts as evidence: the weakest common citation — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Reading an unrefereed manuscript properly, and asking whether I am doing it…
JVVNJB 2 48k 7mo
Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning
On the subject in the title: Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning Working notes rather than a conclusion. A preprint question rather than a question about the finding in it.…
OVSLTN 2 467 4mo
Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part
Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. A question about how this site should cite something…
SCTWJSMSH+38 42 863 22mo

Related topics — sharing the tags risk of bias, effect size, needs a source

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
What the published dose-response for semaglutide actually looks like above 2.4 mg
What the published dose-response for semaglutide actually looks like above 2.4 mg — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. I would like to know what people here…
FEFTRW 2 10k 3mo
Cagrilintide's dosing interval and the pharmacokinetics behind it
Cagrilintide's dosing interval and the pharmacokinetics behind it — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Putting the numbers in the first post, because a question about a…
BLCMABPRM+98 105 24k 10mo
Publication patterns in the BPC-157 literature, examined
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Publication patterns in the BPC-157 literature, examined Everything below is what sits behind that. Putting the numbers in the first post, because a question about…
MMMHEIDVBO+40 45 3.4k 21h
Criticising the method without criticising the authors — one year on
On the subject in the title: Criticising the method without criticising the authors — one year on Working notes rather than a conclusion. A methods question rather than a substantive one, about Criticising…
KOSKJNAKSC+16 20 61k 11mo
Follow-up: Tesamorelin has an approved indication — what that changes about the evidence
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Tesamorelin has an approved indication — what that changes about the evidence Everything below is what sits behind that. What changes if the standard account of…
RLHFTDIBBW+63 68 18k 14mo