Evidence · Preprints · continued

Coming back to: Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part posts 91–117

Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size preprint Under review

This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.

g.verhoevenTL2 Moderator28 Jun 2026#91

f.fenwick, post #41: Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up. Go to post

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

8 likes in reply to #41 30d

ZieglerTL3Regular29 Jun 2026#92

n.lehtinen, post #21: This follows post #18 rather than contradicting it. 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. Go to post

This follows post #89 rather than contradicting it.

Discussing preprints in this community: bring them in for early discussion, label them clearly as preprints, invite peer critique, and be prepared for the discussion to differ if the paper is later published differently.

2 likes in reply to #21 29d

m.dumitruTL2 Moderator30 Jun 2026#93

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.

0 likes 28d

diluent_watchTL2Member1 Jul 2026 · edited#94

Peer review as a filter: published papers have survived a review process that rejects many submissions. Preprints have not. Neither guarantees correctness, but publication history is a difference worth noting.

26 likes 26d

d.ndiayeTL2 Moderator3 Jul 2026#95

b.vanhecke, post #53: Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive. Go to post

Coming back to post #93, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Server repositories: medRxiv for medicine, bioRxiv for biology. Preprints on these servers are time-stamped and have DOIs even if they are later published elsewhere. Citing the preprint with its DOI is appropriate while noting it is unpublished.

12 likes in reply to #53 25d

l.aaltonenTL3Regular4 Jul 2026#96

Picking up post #93: that is the part I would want checked first.

For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.

4 likes 24d

ca.vermeulenTL25 Jul 2026#97

Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above

What changes between preprint and publication: authors respond to reviewer comments, re-analyse data, correct errors found in peer review, and sometimes report different results from updated analyses. The published version is not the same as the preprint.

h.nicolaidesTL3Regular6 Jul 2026#98

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.

0 likes 22d

in.guerreroTL2 Moderator7 Jul 2026#99

I read post #97 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

2 likes 21d

endpoint_lineTL3Regular8 Jul 2026#100

h.ferrari, post #44: Server repositories: medRxiv for medicine, bioRxiv for biology. Preprints on these servers are time-stamped and have DOIs even if they are later published elsewhere. Citing the preprint with its DOI is appropriate while noting it is unpublished. Go to post

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.

0 likes in reply to #44 20d

s.hartmannTL2 Moderator9 Jul 2026#101

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

0 likes 19d

m.wanjalaTL1Member10 Jul 2026#102

19 likes 18d

k.kimaniTL2 Moderator11 Jul 2026#103

KAndersson, post #86: Worth separating two things that post #82 runs together. 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. Go to post

I read post #101 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

8 likes in reply to #86 17d

KForsbergTL2Member12 Jul 2026#104

buffer_sheet, post #64: On post #60 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification. Check whether it was later published: searching for the preprint's first author and keywords in PubMed might find a published version. The published version is the stronger citation if it exists. Go to post

This follows post #101 rather than contradicting it.

2 likes in reply to #64 16d

s.radichTL2 Moderator13 Jul 2026#105

On post #101 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Check whether it was later published: searching for the preprint's first author and keywords in PubMed might find a published version. The published version is the stronger citation if it exists.

0 likes 14d

WoodhouseTL2Member14 Jul 2026 · edited#106

Always label it as a preprint in any discussion. A preprint is not a published trial and it is not settled knowledge. Use it for hypothesis generation and for understanding emerging evidence, not for drawing definitive conclusions.

27 likes 13d

o.nybergTL2 Moderator16 Jul 2026#107

s.hartmann, post #101: Two things before anyone answers the substance. First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound. Go to post

13 likes in reply to #101 12d

MakinenTL2Member17 Jul 2026#108

Picking up post #105: that is the part I would want checked first.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

4 likes 11d

b.aaltoTL2 Moderator18 Jul 2026#109

Worth separating two things that post #105 runs together.

0 likes 10d

e.lehtinenTL2 Moderator19 Jul 2026#110

diluent_watch, post #94: Peer review as a filter: published papers have survived a review process that rejects many submissions. Preprints have not. Neither guarantees correctness, but publication history is a difference worth noting. Go to post

post #109 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

0 likes in reply to #94 9d

baseline_tableTL2Member20 Jul 2026#111

r.danquah, post #46: Discussing preprints in this community: bring them in for early discussion, label them clearly as preprints, invite peer critique, and be prepared for the discussion to differ if the paper is later published differently. Go to post

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.

0 likes in reply to #46 8d

t.brandtTL2 Moderator21 Jul 2026#112

2 likes 7d

DSakamotoTL3Regular22 Jul 2026#113

post #112 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

9 likes 6d

ew.kuuselaTL2 Moderator23 Jul 2026#114

21 likes 5d

cohort_watchTL2Member24 Jul 2026#115

j.nwosu, post #60: Picking up post #57: that is the part I would want checked first. For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use. Go to post

0 likes in reply to #60 4d

f.laurentTL2 Moderator25 Jul 2026#116

Check whether it was later published: searching for the preprint's first author and keywords in PubMed might find a published version. The published version is the stronger citation if it exists.

5 likes 3d

k.bettencourtTL2Member26 Jul 2026#117

post #116 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

14 likes 2d

This topic was referenced in

Preprint servers and what screening they doEvidence › Preprints · 106 replies
Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning — does this still hold?Evidence › Preprints · 115 replies
When a preprint is the best available evidence and we say so — a second datasetEvidence › Preprints · 24 replies

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part Evidence › Preprints needs a source risk of bias preprint effect size 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. Session topic: SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016). Please…	+38	42	863	22mo
Conference abstracts as evidence: the weakest common citation Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size needs a source On the subject in the title: Conference abstracts as evidence: the weakest common citation Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022). Please read it before…	+1	5	2k	9mo
Tracking a preprint to publication: a worked example Evidence › Preprints preprint risk of bias needs a source 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. Session topic: STEP 1 ( N Engl J Med , 2021). Please read it before…	+133	147	15k	7mo
Tracking a preprint to publication: a worked example — the long version Evidence › Preprints risk of bias preprint effect size Posting this under the heading it deserves: Tracking a preprint to publication: a worked example — the long version Everything below is what sits behind that. Comparing STEP 8 ( JAMA , 2022) with STEP 2 (…	+38	47	560	22mo
A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — what changed since Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size needs a source On the subject in the title: A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021). Please read it…	+3	7	125	8mo

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
What we do not know about retatrutide, listed explicitly Compounds › Retatrutide retatrutide effect size preprint TRIUMPH programme The question in the title: What we do not know about retatrutide, listed explicitly I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Comparing FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024) with SURMOUNT-OSA…	+106	113	4.8k	17mo
Measurement error in a self-reported exposure Evidence › Study critique confounding risk of bias effect size disputed Solved Closed Posting this under the heading it deserves: Measurement error in a self-reported exposure Everything below is what sits behind that. Session topic: SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med , 2021). Please read it before…	+117	129	45k	5mo
Coming back to: Prediction intervals and why they are more honest than confidence intervals Evidence › Meta-analyses publication bias heterogeneity effect size risk of bias Prediction intervals and why they are more honest than confidence intervals Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Comparing SURMOUNT-OSA ( N Engl J Med , 2024)…		2	65	22mo
Why plausible mechanism is not evidence of effect — one year on Compounds › Repair & healing peptides needs a source preprint BPC-157 Solved Closed The question in the title: Why plausible mechanism is not evidence of effect — one year on I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Session topic: STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021). Please read…	+3	7	3.6k	13mo
Second pass at: Designing a personal experiment that could change your mind Research Methods › N-of-1 designs worked example effect size confounding data table Solved Second pass at: Designing a personal experiment that could change your mind Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Session topic: SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021). Please…	+39	44	632	14mo

Coming back to: Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part posts 91–117

This topic was referenced in

Suggested topics

Related topics — sharing the tags risk of bias, effect size, preprint