4 ms·
> a pre-print in the process of review. So not reviewed yet. My point is that both a preprint and a letter to the editors have not gone through a rigorous rev
by flor1s 5y ago
> a pre-print in the process of review.
So not reviewed yet.
My point is that both a preprint and a letter to the editors have not gone through a rigorous review. Preprints might be submitted for peer-review but that's no guarantee that it will be published in a reputable venue.
- timr 5y agoEquating a pre-print with a letter because they have both not gone through a review is like equating a skateboard with a car because they both have wheels. Yes, both are text, written in the english language, shown on a webpage. Beyond that, they share no similarities.
- flor1s 5y agoIf you think a pre-print is a better source than an academic letter (published in a reputable scientific journal, which implies at least editorial review), then lets agree to disagree.
- timr 5y agoA pre-print from legitimate researchers is a much higher standard of evidence than a letter. It's not really a matter of opinion. If you cannot reliably judge the legitimacy of a pre-print in an area, then you aren't qualified to judge the legitimacy of any scientific comment in that area.
- flor1s 5y agoYou keep calling it a "letter" but it is not just a "letter" in the sense that I can write a letter to you, it's a letter written by experts in the field to a top ranked scientific journal that has been editorially reviewed (by experts). > If you cannot reliably judge the legitimacy of a pre-print in an area, then you aren't qualified to judge the legitimacy of any scientific comment in that area. I agree, but now we are moving into the content and not just judging the book by its cover.