Just me or is this stringe? Why is preprint discussed before peer-review? [Pop]sci media really thinks this is OK? http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-significant-differences-brains-men-and-women …
I take your points but I think they are orthogonal to the issues here (esp in the linked thread) in some way. I take it you think otherwise.
-
-
I mainly think there's not much of a reason to treat pre and post peer reviewed material differently because peer review is capricious
-
Fair enough. I do worry about pre-prints in the media though more than post-prints because the consumers of media are the public and maybe
-
I'm wrong but post-prints seem to be treated to criticism by other scientists in the media so let's hope that is applied to pre-prints too.
-
The specific case I tweeted about in the OP does not seem to have anything critical within the article.
-
Yeah I can't speak to this particular case, though if this person was overconfident I wonder if publication would help with that
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.