Kristian G. AndersenGeverifieerd account

I think that it’s about time that we had The Talk about the role of bioRxiv during outbreaks. Some of this is so far out that individually they wont impact much, but collectively they are shaping the narrative. We wanted real-time results, but it comes with an accuracy trade-off.https://twitter.com/RhysHParry/status/1224629553487679488 …

I completely agree. I am also worried that the public doesn't understand post publication peer review. At school pick up yesterday a parent asked me if this was an engineered mashup of SARS and HIV. The nonsense is halfway around the world before peer review has got its boots on

I should be doing something productive right now, but you both are reasonable people to discuss this with, so...I think linking this to preprints and biorxiv is misplaced. Yes, it is a platform through which bad science can get amplified and disseminated. But, I don't think (1x)

I don't think speed is the problem. I don't think any of us have a problem with @trvrb @K_G_Andersen or @arambaut for example posting their analyses in real time on Virological, next strain etc. The difference is that this is good work. In both these instances & on biorxiv (2/x)

There are discussions about the results, critiques, etc. in real time. The bigger problem that you have identified is that outside of the circle of scientists who know what they're talking about, there is a world of @DrEricDing's who can't distinguish the good from the bad (3/x)

And some (not all!) journalists who are looking for the hot take or fresh tidbit of info to write next story. So, yes there is a problem, but I think preprints are not the root issue. It's how they're discussed, and how public understands info. (4/x)

Yesterday, I called out a headline (later corrected, which was awesome) that was misleading given the paper under discussion. Paper was peer reviewed in NEJM. Again, the problem wasn't lack of peer review, it was how information is disseminated beyond scientific audiences. (5/5)