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
-
-
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.