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.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest
Fair enough. Danger of tweeting past each other always high! Still, sounds like u wanted 2 make specific point about being preprint
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jmyearsley @o_guest
Here's my tuppence worth: Whenever I read any MS I make a judgment about how much faith to put in results.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jmyearsley @o_guest
Many factors influence this, inc whether published. SciCom writers do the same. Credulity is a judgment call.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jmyearsley @o_guest
Equally lack of critical appraisal not specific to reports on preprints. So meh basically.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @o_guest @jmyearsley
Yeah, I'm aware of the anti peer review stance some people have. I disagree. But that's me.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
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.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
-
I think twitter itself does a pretty good job of breaking Twitter. 
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.

