OK, here is the concern, expressed in a sentence: "Our peer-reviewed, published study found that preprints have become an important information source for many journalists, and one that some plan to keep using post-pandemic." I wonder, did we really need a peer-reviewed study to determine this? And was it worth the two year wait for the results to be published? No, the real challenge is this: "it was important to label preprints as 'preprints' in their stories or mention that the research had not been peer reviewed." Or maybe better, rethink the slow formal peer review process and conduct the entire process - posting, reviewing, correcting - in an open and public manner, especially when we need freely accessible and current research, as during a pandemic. Yes, there was confusion during the pandemic, but peer review would not have solved that. We would have had nothing but confusion for two years - and then confusion as studies still reached different conclusions.
Today: 4 Total: 4 [Direct link] [Share]
