Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
5
Posts
5
Users
0
Reactions
1
Views
Topic starter
16/02/2023 3:47 am
A cited preprint has a later published version. How should an archive entry handle the relationship?
| Field | Scope |
|---|---|
| Subject | Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication |
| Exercise | Discuss the stated question; distinguish sources, interpretations and unresolved points. |
16/02/2023 5:16 am
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.
16/02/2023 5:32 am
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.
16/02/2023 5:37 am
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.
16/02/2023 6:08 am
Limit of the answer in “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: “Link both versions, record dates and check whether…” is an excerpt from the discussion, not an independent verification. A reader needs the relevant original material before treating an interpretation as established. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
Share: