My views refer in particular to one of the field I work on (exercise physiology/sport science). If you made it until here, I hope you will tell me your opinions😊 12/12

Additionally, I saw lately several preprints that does not contain results. Like views, opinion papers, comments or stuff like that. Why? Is it not like a blogpost? I read these preprints in my field and I understand that some might be hard to publish, but are preprints to express “opinions”? 11/12

In the past, I published some preprints of works with limited access to the data (and no code) and respect a journal word count. After reading some good preprints, I try to be more selective and see if I can allocate additional work to make the preprint as I think it should be 10/12

Preprints might be good to tell the whole story, show data (data and code, even synthetic/simulated data, are still rare on preprints). Of course this requires more work, and several works (where data cannot be freely shared, for example) not suitable for preprints. 9/12

I now think that not all work are suitable for preprints, or I might just disagree with the current format/conception of preprints. In particular, why are most of people still using the “journal formats” also for preprints? I mean limited world counts, static figures, etc 8/12

A 3rd advantage (and I’ll stop to 3) is that it might boost impact of your work and get feedbck from the community (not really). What this means is that you can share the number of “downloads and reads” of the preprint in the cover letter to tell the editor “hey look, it received interest”! 7/12

…to be able to access an “history” of the paper, from pre- to post-peer review. I like this idea, as peer-review is not always as fair and transparent as it should be.
even though I think it is more a responsibility of the journal to do so (publish peer-review history). 6/12

But ofc the same paper could still contain major methodological flaws, that ✨peer-review✨should prevent from being published. I’m putting stars around peer-review to imdicate what pr-rw should be and not what it sometimes(?) is. So, as a more senior colleague told me, once another advantage is… 5/12

One strength is probably that you can share your RESULTS with the community openly and immediately. But this often translates to “I need to cite my work for a follow up paper or for my grant”. I don’t really think one would share smth knowing that it is garbage as there is your name on it. 4/12

I was of course supporting preprints (I still am), but now I understand better why my mentors and senior colleagues had doubts. And I better understand (not fully! Looking for your opinions here) the strengths and limitations of preprints, and why we should ask ourselves if our work is suitable 3/12

As student, I was seeing the discussion on preprints as: old scientists -reluctant to changes- vs. Young enlightened scientists aiming to improve “openness” in science (whatever it means those days, we were united under the preprint flag, but we had very different views of OpenScience) 2/12

Yes, might depends on the little circle, and as you are telling me, on the personal experiences on the platforms. But the results feels about right, I hope science proceeds at a different pace tweets. I might miss a couple of tweets and it’s ok but I shouldn’t miss a paper on my topic when citing.

2. Probably for 1 paper you are citing because you heard about it on your social media circle, you cite 10 that none ever twitted about

I think there are 2 points here: 1.When I cite I should know the literature and the paper that support my statement, regardless if its a manuscript lost in the vatican library or the lastest paper from my friend with a huge kardashan index. Transfer of knowledge, I guess that’s another thing. And