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 …
A tweet doesn't allow for too much nuance or for me to expand mu thoughts — the thread/subthreads that follow under the OP expand my take.
-
-
Fair enough. Danger of tweeting past each other always high! Still, sounds like u wanted 2 make specific point about being preprint
-
Here's my tuppence worth: Whenever I read any MS I make a judgment about how much faith to put in results.
-
Many factors influence this, inc whether published. SciCom writers do the same. Credulity is a judgment call.
-
Equally lack of critical appraisal not specific to reports on preprints. So meh basically.
-
Not all mass media readers are like you.
-
Yeah, I'm aware of the anti peer review stance some people have. I disagree. But that's me.

-
Well it's a continuum. Eg I trust Psych Rev more than Frontiers. I'm not anti Peer review but it isn't magic bullet.
-
I'm not sure we disagree.

- 2 more replies
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.