I'm gonna be contrarian here and say there's nothing wrong or bad about discussing a preprint with a journalist
-
-
Replying to @psforscher @o_guest
A preprint represents your provisional best guess about a subject -- just like a conventional publication
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @psforscher
you think it's equivalent to a post-review paper?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
Pretty much, except a few people have commented on it. I don't have much faith that the peer review process adds much to publications
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @psforscher @o_guest
See here for some of my thoughts if you like http://persistentastonishment.blogspot.com/2015/08/reviewing-peer-review-and-its-flaws.html?m=1 …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @psforscher
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
I mainly think there's not much of a reason to treat pre and post peer reviewed material differently because peer review is capricious
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @psforscher
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @psforscher
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest
That's reasonable. Preprints have seemed to work well in math and physics, though, so I am hopeful
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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.
me also