I could tell you what this ‘paper’ says—but I won’t. A blot on modern science practice

The gold standard in science is still the publication of a paper in a respected journal that passes the scrutiny of other scientists in the field of research—the peer-reviewed paper. Although standards of refereeing and editing papers over the past few decades have fallen markedly and peer review only helps prevent errors of thought, conduct or interpretation there is no other way of recognising new knowledge. 

Preliminary, i.e. not properly published, research finds its way into the public domain by a variety of routes. The unwise admission of journalists to medical conferences where unpublished work may be presented and discussed is one example, Such opportunities are widely abused by those clinicians and scientists seeking the limelight rather than new light.

Some years ago physicists began the circulation of papers before they had been accepted for publication. The preprint was born and there are now websites that house them. Some preprints go on to be published properly but other linger in limbo. Some journals would not—and I hope still do not—allow publication of research that has appeared in print or online in any informal format. I can only assume that authors ‘publish’ preprints either to indicate they have publications in the offing on a CV when looking for a job or to ward off competitors from doing the same work and publishing properly first.

It is the preprints in limbo that pose a problem. When I was looking up signs of more recent research for an article that appeared here I came across a paper that was highly pertinent. However, I then found it was on a preprint server having been uploaded nearly two years ago. With no trace of a proper publication I was in a dilemma. Was I to describe the work together with a caveat that it was not a peer-reviewed publication. Or was I to ignore it, even though the findings the authors described would have added weight to the other evidence I was discussing. I chose the latter course.  If the work is published properly I will update the article—one huge advantage of a non-print site like this. Having read the preprint I suspect that referees may be questioning some of the methodology and suggesting more work. We shall see.

The animals in question? Here is a clue.