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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.