Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
6
Posts
6
Users
0
Reactions
0
Views
Topic starter
12/10/2018 4:11 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. |
12/10/2018 5:22 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.
12/10/2018 5:30 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.
12/10/2018 6:23 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.
12/10/2018 6:42 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.
12/10/2018 7:03 am
Correction note for “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: retain the wording beginning “Link both versions, record dates and check whether…” in the record. If later material changes it, add the date, the changed wording and the source for that change; do not invent a completed correction here. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
Share: