• @randomaccount43543@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    25111 months ago

    Just a word of caution: Non-peer reviewed, non-replicated, rushed-looking preprint, on a topic with a long history of controversy and retractions. So don’t get too excited yet.

    • @ViridianNott@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      25
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Okay so I agree that it needs to be peer reviewed and independently verified before we can trust it. But how exactly does the preprint look rushed?

      • @cryball@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        20
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I would also like to know. Apparently there were some proofreading errors etc. Someone in reddit explained that rushing the publish might be explained by wanting to stake the claim and get the ball rolling on reproducing the results as fast as possible.

        • @ViridianNott@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          711 months ago

          Honestly as someone who is also in research, that is pretty understandable. Preprint papers are all subject to peer review and editing after the fact, but are a good opportunity to stake your claim on a big discovery before someone else can. Preprints are inherently not final versions and I guarantee that the mistakes will be caught before publication.

          • @cryball@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            511 months ago

            As someone that no longer has access to university library’s journal subscriptions, I very much support publishing these in a openly accessible manner.

      • @rishabh@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        8
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Have you… seen the… figures?!! Also, the Arxiv listing had a spelling mistake. “First” was spelled as “firs”.