RT @HansCollin2: Algunos dicen: “Esa es una prepublicación” como si eso es algo que la desacredita o disminuye su importancia. Bueno, *NO*…
Algunos dicen: “Esa es una prepublicación” como si eso es algo que la desacredita o disminuye su importancia. Bueno, *NO* es así. En la práctica, MUY poco cambia desde la prepublicación a la publicación formal en revistas científicas revisadas por pares.
@RuxandraTeslo some studies on the by and large v limited changes between peer reviewed and pre-prints. I know a few people have looked at this - these are the two I can remember but idk if they’re the best: https://t.co/rFjCyUa0jX https://t.co/ObMAQAViPt
RT @JACoates: Over 70% (COVID or non-COVID) preprints had (at most) figure rearrangements upon publication data: https://t.co/tTzGC1Jc5p h…
RT @JACoates: Over 70% (COVID or non-COVID) preprints had (at most) figure rearrangements upon publication data: https://t.co/tTzGC1Jc5p h…
Over 85% of COVID-19 (>94% of non-COVID-19) abstracts have no significant changes upon publication data: https://t.co/tTzGC1Jc5p https://t.co/u3vgKZxgEq
Over 70% (COVID or non-COVID) preprints had (at most) figure rearrangements upon publication data: https://t.co/tTzGC1Jc5p https://t.co/JicT4cOBWJ
3. Write a tweetorial for your latest preprint prompt: write a twitter thread for the following paper https://t.co/pESKk8s9C2 https://t.co/GFi4i0rDyV
RT @PracheeAC: IMO, not everything needs review, traditional review lends a false sense of truth, conclusions don’t change much (https://t.…
RT @PracheeAC: IMO, not everything needs review, traditional review lends a false sense of truth, conclusions don’t change much (https://t.…
RT @PracheeAC: IMO, not everything needs review, traditional review lends a false sense of truth, conclusions don’t change much (https://t.…
RT @PracheeAC: IMO, not everything needs review, traditional review lends a false sense of truth, conclusions don’t change much (https://t.…
RT @PracheeAC: IMO, not everything needs review, traditional review lends a false sense of truth, conclusions don’t change much (https://t.…
Peer review is wonderful and it provides a depth of feedback that just posting a preprint doesn’t. But we shouldn’t peer review everything. Some we put out and I’m grateful for a close look from colleagues. Others are just useful/interesting bits. If fol
RT @PracheeAC: IMO, not everything needs review, traditional review lends a false sense of truth, conclusions don’t change much (https://t.…
This. This. This.
RT @PracheeAC: IMO, not everything needs review, traditional review lends a false sense of truth, conclusions don’t change much (https://t.…
IMO, not everything needs review, traditional review lends a false sense of truth, conclusions don’t change much (https://t.co/VpzOt4lybA), and it comes with an enormous cost (both financial and in scientific advancement) 2/
@Lala___Star But see: https://t.co/uWT31sksbL
@garethklose @ArisKatzourakis I'm a layman. Recently found out that preprints are not as bad as many had feared. However tracking the pandemic I understood how important it is to have several papers confirming a hypothesis, not just one piece of the puzz
@umairfan As in a database that actually assesses changes made? Don't know about that, but here's a study looking at the question in aggregate: https://t.co/fl2VGU3vhM
Not for Econ papers, but relevant:
RT @ACasadevall1: Only a minority of preprint abstracts (7.2% of non-Covid and 17.2% of COVID related) show changes when published and 'maj…
RT @ACasadevall1: Only a minority of preprint abstracts (7.2% of non-Covid and 17.2% of COVID related) show changes when published and 'maj…
RT @ACasadevall1: Only a minority of preprint abstracts (7.2% of non-Covid and 17.2% of COVID related) show changes when published and 'maj…
RT @ACasadevall1: Only a minority of preprint abstracts (7.2% of non-Covid and 17.2% of COVID related) show changes when published and 'maj…
RT @ACasadevall1: Only a minority of preprint abstracts (7.2% of non-Covid and 17.2% of COVID related) show changes when published and 'maj…
🤖 Tweet rising in popularity within Science Pulse database [2/3] https://t.co/0Q195jrYwp
RT @ACasadevall1: Only a minority of preprint abstracts (7.2% of non-Covid and 17.2% of COVID related) show changes when published and 'maj…
RT @ACasadevall1: Only a minority of preprint abstracts (7.2% of non-Covid and 17.2% of COVID related) show changes when published and 'maj…
RT @ACasadevall1: Only a minority of preprint abstracts (7.2% of non-Covid and 17.2% of COVID related) show changes when published and 'maj…
RT @ACasadevall1: Only a minority of preprint abstracts (7.2% of non-Covid and 17.2% of COVID related) show changes when published and 'maj…
RT @ACasadevall1: Only a minority of preprint abstracts (7.2% of non-Covid and 17.2% of COVID related) show changes when published and 'maj…
RT @ACasadevall1: Only a minority of preprint abstracts (7.2% of non-Covid and 17.2% of COVID related) show changes when published and 'maj…
RT @ACasadevall1: Only a minority of preprint abstracts (7.2% of non-Covid and 17.2% of COVID related) show changes when published and 'maj…
RT @ACasadevall1: Only a minority of preprint abstracts (7.2% of non-Covid and 17.2% of COVID related) show changes when published and 'maj…
RT @ACasadevall1: Only a minority of preprint abstracts (7.2% of non-Covid and 17.2% of COVID related) show changes when published and 'maj…
RT @ACasadevall1: Only a minority of preprint abstracts (7.2% of non-Covid and 17.2% of COVID related) show changes when published and 'maj…
RT @ACasadevall1: Only a minority of preprint abstracts (7.2% of non-Covid and 17.2% of COVID related) show changes when published and 'maj…
RT @ACasadevall1: Only a minority of preprint abstracts (7.2% of non-Covid and 17.2% of COVID related) show changes when published and 'maj…
Only a minority of preprint abstracts (7.2% of non-Covid and 17.2% of COVID related) show changes when published and 'majority of these changes do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper'. Finding supports use of preprints. @cshperspectives
1 very successful paper + 1 middling author paper published. *Lots* of media attention associated with the 1st paper which was all very exciting and unexpected - including appearances on Austrian & German national radio. https://t.co/tTzGC20MWX &am
RT @KamounLab: Quantifying the value of peer-review… “…total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and publis…
RT @KamounLab: Quantifying the value of peer-review… “…total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and publis…
RT @KamounLab: Quantifying the value of peer-review… “…total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and publis…
Quantifying the value of peer-review… “…total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles… the majority of changes do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper.” https://t.co/Oirzb5085z
@mikebarnkob Pre-prints accelerate science. These two papers show that often there is little difference between pre-print and peer-reviewed version, but time is crucial in a pandemic. As long as public & press are aware of the differences... https://
@lucaborger @JACoates There are more studies like this with different methods pointing in the same direction (eg https://t.co/F2uiKoLjW0). As @JACoates suggested there might be large differences between fields & I wouldn’t discount the possibility that
A relevant study from @PLOSBiology on whether #peerreview changes the conclusions of a given study. It is a useful datapoint to consider in light of the @elife @mbeisen publication model change. https://t.co/UH4MYukwrk
RT @JACoates: All of the evidence is really building to show preprints don't hugely differ from published versions (and I'm not surprised b…
All of the evidence is really building to show preprints don't hugely differ from published versions (and I'm not surprised by that). This is very much what we found too https://t.co/5couZk4amT (also great to see this out I think I reviewed it at one poi
@KA_Nicholas @james_t_webber @ConsensusNLP @JaneFriedman @sciscore @mbeisen @jessicapolka Well there have definitely been the kind of studies that show there’s not as much difference between preprints & journal version as one might suspect, challenging
@_ohcoco_ Interesting paper that speaks to it here: https://t.co/KrwBITm6y6
RT @ram_ssrc: @AdrianoAguzzi Oh we talked about this during @ASAPbio_ meetings. Backing your tweet with some interesting literature in cas…
@AdrianoAguzzi Oh we talked about this during @ASAPbio_ meetings. Backing your tweet with some interesting literature in case you missed. I am sure there's more work about preprints vs peer-reviewed publications https://t.co/rHzQhc4Hf9 and https://t.co/r
@muycarba Sabés que la moda de los preprint me daba un miedito.. pero... parece que esta todo bien (?)... igual, siempre atento porque puede malir sal https://t.co/7kBc6d0Vy7
RT @JACoates: @hertzpodcast talking about comparing preprints to their published versions in their recent episode. It is a good idea 😛 Can'…
@hertzpodcast talking about comparing preprints to their published versions in their recent episode. It is a good idea 😛 Can't remember if we looked at limitation statements though. https://t.co/5couZk3Cxl
It's not just us who show this either. I've covered some of the other papers here but there is growing evidence to support this. But there is no good evidence (that I've seen) showing that peer review does what the journals and advocates say it does https:
RT @ReviewCommons: 'We assessed preprints from @bioRxiv and @medrxivpreprint that had been posted and subsequently published in a journal t…
RT @ReviewCommons: 'We assessed preprints from @bioRxiv and @medrxivpreprint that had been posted and subsequently published in a journal t…
RT @ReviewCommons: 'We assessed preprints from @bioRxiv and @medrxivpreprint that had been posted and subsequently published in a journal t…
'We assessed preprints from @bioRxiv and @medrxivpreprint that had been posted and subsequently published in a journal through April 30, 2020, representing the initial phase of the pandemic response' @L_Brierley et al @PLOSBiology https://t.co/Zcrpko6bO9
RT @DonEford: There's talk about if it's appropriate to use pre-peer-reviewed papers to create or alter strategies. But get this, there's…
RT @DonEford: There's talk about if it's appropriate to use pre-peer-reviewed papers to create or alter strategies. But get this, there's…
RT @DonEford: There's talk about if it's appropriate to use pre-peer-reviewed papers to create or alter strategies. But get this, there's…
RT @DonEford: There's talk about if it's appropriate to use pre-peer-reviewed papers to create or alter strategies. But get this, there's…
There's talk about if it's appropriate to use pre-peer-reviewed papers to create or alter strategies. But get this, there's actually a study on this that proves that peer review alters articles only very rarely. And it gets better... It's peer reviewed.
@BillHanage Peer-review is not a standarized process and many parts of are controlled by the same groups telling us to dismiss risk in unscientific ways. On top of that... a study was done to see how many preprints are actually redacted... And this is pe
RT @EdArXiv: Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic. "...abstracts undergo a discrete change…
RT @EdArXiv: Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic. "...abstracts undergo a discrete change…
RT @EdArXiv: Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic. "...abstracts undergo a discrete change…
RT @EdArXiv: Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic. "...abstracts undergo a discrete change…
Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic. "...abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper." https://
First, preprints. COVID was the event that pushed medical preprints into the mainstream. And the sky has not fallen in. Reporting has been pretty responsible—and the preprints themselves have largely held up well. 2/4 https://t.co/soWpLgrUed
An interesting article, but with some significant caveats... #PLOSBiology: Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic https://t.co/ZCPQcxLOen https://t.co/PiPLviDXVb
RT @nycbat: Interesting study comparting pre-print and peer-reviewed manuscripts by @L_Brierley et al.: Tracking changes between preprint p…
Interesting study comparting pre-print and peer-reviewed manuscripts by @L_Brierley et al.: Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic https://t.co/CYdbblK0U2
RT @JACoates: @TheEconomist running a piece about #preprints & our latest @PLOSBiology paper! https://t.co/tTzGC1Jc5p https://t.co/GsOyoo2b…
RT @JACoates: @TheEconomist running a piece about #preprints & our latest @PLOSBiology paper! https://t.co/tTzGC1Jc5p https://t.co/GsOyoo2b…
"M Muraille regrette le recours aux pré-publications, diffusées dans les médias avant d’avoir été relues." - Un "vrai" scientifique a parlé, mais ferait mieux de se renseigner un peu avant de créer son Ministère de la vérité... https://t.co/sbHyLkpUkM
Original paper here: https://t.co/rKLAHQKGfL
83% of covid-related preprint papers & 93% of non-covid ones had no real change to their original conclusions once published in journals…in other words, what value are high-cost subscription journals providing besides making the rest of us pay through
RT @BrunaLab: @hormiga @ME_Frederickson I haven’t read this too closely yet, but substantive changes may not be as common as we think. http…
RT @BrunaLab: @hormiga @ME_Frederickson I haven’t read this too closely yet, but substantive changes may not be as common as we think. http…
In a preprint, the research should already be practically ready, but the statement is certainly correct.
STABLE: We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, ... the majority of these changes do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper. https://t.co/us7ZbJ7S0b
This "meta-research article" attempts to answer a question I have lots of non-quantitative thoughts about: How much do manuscripts change between preprinting and peer-reviewed publication? Not that much. https://t.co/HlvzXu0oZn
RT @EckerleIsabella: A nice study re scepticism on pre-prints: most published papers didn’t change from pre-print to paper & if, only for m…
RT @INRAE_DipSO: #preprints "Deux études montrent que les manuscrits, ensuite publiés dans des revues scientifiques, sont peu différents de…
RT @luis_quevedo: Sobre preprints del principio de la pandemia 👉🏻 el 82,8% sobre coronavirus y el 92,8% no relacionadas con el coronavirus…
RT @tomstafford: Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic https://t.co/13fv3p1tTn "the majority…
RT @tomstafford: Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic https://t.co/13fv3p1tTn "the majority…
RT @INRAE_DipSO: #preprints "Deux études montrent que les manuscrits, ensuite publiés dans des revues scientifiques, sont peu différents de…
"Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic" by @L_Brierley and colleagues ✨ Very few changes to abstracts between preprint & final version, and these changes don't change paper conclusions. https://t.co/MChtI
Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic https://t.co/13fv3p1tTn "the majority of these changes [between preprint and published paper] do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper." Via @OpenResShef