There's been a lot of discussion recently about preprints and how we should interpret them as evidence
A few thoughts from my perspective as an epidemiologist and science communicator 1/7
A few thoughts from my perspective as an epidemiologist and science communicator 1/7
2/7 The basic idea of preprints was originally twofold:
1. Put your research in the public domain, get feedback before publication
2. Get research up while it works its way through months/years of peer review
1. Put your research in the public domain, get feedback before publication
2. Get research up while it works its way through months/years of peer review
3/7 During the pandemic, given the absurd reality of months+ for studies to be peer-reviewed, preprints have become one of the primary ways for us to see new science
Imo there are pros and cons here
Imo there are pros and cons here
4/7 Peer review isn't perfect. Often, it's not even very good. It is at best an enormously flawed method of ensuring that bad-quality research doesn't get published
In case you've forgotten, the fraudulent Surgisphere papers were peer reviewed!
In case you've forgotten, the fraudulent Surgisphere papers were peer reviewed!
5/7 On the other hand, peer review is still FAR better than NO peer review. Having 3-4 colleagues check over your work doesn't make it perfect, but it makes it better than you just blindly posting it online
6/7 Ultimately, my advice to anyone is to basically treat preprints almost exactly as you would any scientific study, with maybe a touch more skepticism. They aren't necessarily worse than a published paper, but they almost certainly won't be better than one
7/7 For science journalists, while it's important to note that a study is a preprint, I would otherwise approach it exactly as you would any other study
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
