You must log in or register to comment.

AutoModerator t1_j68iiml wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


Forthefishes t1_j68j8fr wrote

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

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.