Forthefishes t1_j68j8fr wrote on January 28, 2023 at 2:39 PM

I don't see the purpose of this article. Can someone help enlighten me?

Smaller trials would typically rejected at a higher rate as would clear biases.

Peer review is working.

Lightweightecon t1_j68mv17 wrote on January 28, 2023 at 3:08 PM

It provides support that preprint studies can provide robust results before peer review is completed, but we should be more cautious about preprints with small samples and biases. May seem obvious, but it’s important to verify preprints are useful.

A lot of people will write off all preprints. But in emergency situations, the peer review wait time can delay policy and research, so preprints are an important source of research results.

Forthefishes t1_j68mycc wrote on January 28, 2023 at 3:08 PM

thanks. that makes sense

nanny2359 t1_j69rnun wrote on January 28, 2023 at 7:49 PM

The possibility of bias is the same, emergency or not. Preprint shouldn't be used to make policy. Incentives should be given to peer review important preprints.

Forthefishes t1_j6fv6mi wrote on January 30, 2023 at 1:07 AM

while I get what you're saying, sometimes policy needs to happen prior to publication. pre publication can serve a valuable purpose while waiting on review