Kristian G. AndersenGeverifieerd account

Yes I think you make good points. The problem remains though.

I agree that preprints aren't the root problem - far from it. Bad science is. However, given the world we live in, we have to take steps to counter misinformation. It's the same argument that made Facebook say that misinformation spreading on their platform wasn't their problem.

In this case, Facebook wasn't the root problem, misinformation was (coupled with Facebook AI of course). I'm not advocating slower down preprints on nCov, but maybe consider a bit more in-depth screen - doesn't have to take more than 15mins. All submissions are already screened.

After this screening bioRxiv could then chose two different paths - (1) not put it online, or (2) put it online but put a somewhat stronger statement saying "screeners have reason to believe this study may be unreliable". I prefer 2, and I think there are many viable hybrids.

My worry is that the status quo of doing nothing - specifically for outbreak research - will destroy the platform in the long run, which would be devastating. The bioRxiv is amazing and there are so many good papers - including on nCoV - and we need that to continue.

But it's true that the *science* is not impeded by the nonsense (other than to the extent that people have to correct it). And it has long been the case that bad science can get good press...

This is one of the challenges of balancing quality, openness and speed in data sharing and science. I suspect that in this age of constant misinformation, people would still be writing pseudoscientific garbage, whether or not there was data or a vehicle to support it.

Preprints give the pre-peer review process structure, and some measure of quality assurance. And the fact that the HIV preprint was publicly and transparently dissected, discounted and withdrawn tells me that the process is working.