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.
Topic summary
Revisiting: How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work
This is a generated summary. It shows the 5 most-liked posts from a topic of 36, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.
post #5 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
23 likes 1mo
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.
32 likes 1mo
j.sandvik, post #15: 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. Go to post
I read post #16 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
j.sandvik, post #15: 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. Go to post
Coming back to post #25, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
Read the full topic (36 posts)
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The "under review" status pill and when a moderator applies it — a second dataset
The "under review" status pill and when a moderator applies it — a second dataset Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021)…
|
+50 | 54 | 1.4k | 11mo |
|
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. Session topic: SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016). Please…
|
+38 | 42 | 863 | 22mo |
|
How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work
How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. I have seen SCALE ( N Engl J Med , 2015) cited in support of a…
|
+112 | 119 | 1.3k | 2y |
|
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. I have seen SELECT ( N Engl J Med , 2023) cited in support of a…
|
2 | 467 | 4mo | |
|
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. Session topic: STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021). Please read it…
|
+3 | 7 | 125 | 8mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags needs a source, risk of bias, preprint
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Follow-up: Retatrutide phase 2 in type 2 diabetes: the Lancet paper
Retatrutide phase 2 in type 2 diabetes: the Lancet paper Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021) cited in support of a claim I…
|
+1 | 5 | 31k | 8mo |
|
Journal club: SUSTAIN 6 and its retinopathy signal
On the subject in the title: Journal club: SUSTAIN 6 and its retinopathy signal Working notes rather than a conclusion. I have seen SELECT ( N Engl J Med , 2023) cited in support of a claim I do not think it…
|
+110 | 122 | 46k | 1d |
|
A 40-week log with the measurement method stated — does this still hold?
A 40-week log with the measurement method stated — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Longitudinal report with the method stated,…
|
+1 | 5 | 14k | 2mo |
|
What the GIP component of tirzepatide is thought to contribute, and how confident we can be
What the GIP component of tirzepatide is thought to contribute, and how confident we can be I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Comparing STEP 1 ( N Engl…
|
+16 | 20 | 23k | 19h |
|
Tracking semaglutide's approved indications across jurisdictions, dated — does this still hold?
Tracking semaglutide's approved indications across jurisdictions, dated — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Comparing SCALE ( N…
|
+58 | 62 | 49k | 20mo |