Current Events > Scientific preprints don't change much after peer review

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/blekhman/status/1490415664728666113?t=ep_YvHdapDV0nXQucnZgYQ&s=19

Not surprising, but cool people are doing the work.

no need to change results, just cite a couple more papers wink wink

Most important statistic is the one he didn't post, which is how many preprints actually make it to print

Why change anything when the money is there for a new study? It's like TV repair, usually less expensive to get a new one.

DarkRoast posted...

Most important statistic is the one he didn't post, which is how many preprints actually make it to print

I really don't think that's much of anything to consider though. The proportion is likely extremely small.

COVxy posted...

I really don't think that's much of anything to consider though. The proportion is likely extremely small.

80% of pre-prints are ultimately rejected from publication:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13224-018-1153-1

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/0/8/AAeEwGAAC5jI.jpg

Unsurprisingly to anyone who has dealt with pre-print abuse in COVID misinformation, poor methodology rules the day.

DarkRoast posted...

80% of pre-prints are ultimately rejected from publication:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13224-018-1153-1

That's not what that statistic means.

COVxy posted...

That's not what that statistic means.

Pre-prints are not peer-reviewed, therefore they haven't been formally accepted by the Journal

DarkRoast posted...

Pre-prints are not peer-reviewed, therefore they haven't been formally accepted by the Journal

Yes, i do know this. Thank you doctor.

Not surprising

IF you have good data and it's well written, very little should change from preprint to final.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2772743

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/1/2/AAeEwGAAC5jM.jpg

Realized I misinterpreted with the original statement was, so I went back and found a more pertinent answer.

The bigger issue is not whether or not they're rejected, it's that only 10% are published in peer-reviewed journals.

DarkRoast posted...

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2772743

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/1/2/AAeEwGAAC5jM.jpg

Realized I misinterpreted with the original statement was, so I went back and found a more pertinent answer.

The bigger issue is not whether or not they're rejected, it's that only 10% are published in peer-reviewed journals.

Publishing can take years from first submission to acceptance. That statistic doesn't mean what you think it means.

Up

Peer review doesn't do too much good. Certainly makes the process of science slower, and translates often a subjective element into one that feels more objective (published, or not).

COVxy posted...

Peer review doesn't do too much good. Certainly makes the process of science slower, and translates often a subjective element into one that feels more objective (published, or not).

What do you propose as an alternative?

While I share your skepticism of the peer review process, in my experience publishing, if the peers don't agree with the conclusion, the manuscript doesn't even make it to preprint. Why would an editor spend time trying to improve someone's weak study when they could just reject it and accept a better one right off the bat?

I actually just had a manuscript accepted today and will go to preprint next week. I anticipate that the edits will be minimal, because during the peer review process, the reviewers threw it back to me and told me to improve my discussion of my analysis and results.

To be clear, they found my conclusions valid, which is the only reason they didn't outright reject it. But they said my wording was unclear and meandered. So I fixed it and resubmitted. Now, as a preprint, we'll mostly be doing copyediting and such.

From what I can see, by the time a paper gets to the preprint stage, it shouldn't have that much more to correct. At least in my field.

So preprint here refers to an article uploaded onto a preprint server prior to sending it out to a journal. Looks like you seem to be referring to preprints as accepted manuscripts prior to copy editing, but that's different. Likely preprints aren't common in your field (they aren't super common in social sciences, but getting more common in some fields), which is likely why you're unfamiliar (if you are, i could have misread).

I think, for the vast majority of cases, what people put up on preprint is usually their honest go at working towards a scientific problem. And for the most part, that's not all that different from what gets published.

Really, the publishing system is vestigial from the days prior to the internet. The only reason it's kept around is because hiring committees, grant committees, etc, don't have a clue how they would "objectively" evaluate people without counting the number of CNS papers an applicant has or summing up the impact factor of all their pubs. Like, it's really not an exaggeration to state that this is the only reason anyone is publishing in journals at this point.

Hurr. Go away, adults are discussing.

Interesting

Ahh, gotcha. Makes sense.

Yeah, social sciences are different. You basically need to submit a near-perfect paper or no one will take you.

Zanzenburger posted...

Yeah, social sciences are different. You basically need to submit a near-perfect paper or no one will take you.

So I mean, I think a lot of people would say the same about the sciences, but what this is showing is that initial submissions and final published papers are effectively the same.

Hey COV, I meant to ask you. Did you ever end up defending? I remember us talking about your defense date coming up but I don't think I followed up.

Yeah, I defended in 2019.

Been at a postdoc position since.

Nice, hope you're enjoying it.

Thanks, it's been okay. I made a bit or a pivot to a different subfield, which was a hard transition. But worth it. But it wasn't helped by the pandemic. Mostly, the pandemic put a gigantic wrench in most of my plans. Been hard to recover from that.