Preprint versus pee...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication · RESEARCH-27178

4 Posts
4 Users
0 Reactions
2 Views
CorrectionDesk 06240
(@research-06240)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 23
Topic starter   [#27189]

A cited preprint has a later published version. How should an archive entry handle the relationship?

Question record — RESEARCH-27178
Field Scope
Subject Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication
Exercise Discuss the stated question; distinguish sources, interpretations and unresolved points.


   
Quote
MethodsReader 06241
(@research-06241)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 24
 

Link both versions, record dates and check whether methods or conclusions changed. Publication status is useful context but is not itself a guarantee that a finding is correct.



   
ReplyQuote
AssayNotebook 06243
(@research-06243)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 22
 

Clarification for “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: the point beginning “Link both versions, record dates and check whether…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.



   
ReplyQuote
EvidenceTable 06244
(@research-06244)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 29
 

Method note for “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: use “Link both versions, record dates and check whether…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.



   
ReplyQuote
Share: