Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

While I appreciate biotech articles being on hacker news, this one is nothing I would expect on the frontage. Three of the authors have interest in the company that makes HD-map. This in combination with being linked as a preprint without peer review makes me look twice. The wording „complete protection“ does the rest.

Does anyone have information if this was ever peer reviewed?



sort by: page size:

Neither of these are a peer-reviewed publication.

As a bioinformatician, I'm really struggling to see what is new here. It seems like it's mostly a marketing thing.


"This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed"

The abstract doesn't say too much about their methods and actual results, and the paper itself is behind a paywall. Was this published freely somewhere else perhaps?

The paper wasn't published in any kind of academic venue, or peer-reviewed at all. It was just a PDF they posted on the internet.

They say published, and link to a pre-print. It's not peer reviewed.

It’s a non peer reviewed preprint, and not actually in a medical journal.

Is it me or is this paper basically missing all technical information?

I get that Therese proprietary technology, but if so, can we please not put this on arxiv and pretend it’s a scientific contribution?


It's open access (i.e., free). Perhaps it would be a better OP than an article about the paper.

It's a medRxive preprint. It didn't get published anywhere. Science (the magazine) has lowered it's standards.

Where's a link to the actual paper/ peer-reviewed publication?

And it was published in Nature Medicine without peer review

no, it was on arxiv somewhere. It was written as a journal article.

edit: AH! it was linked upthread on bioarxiv.


Not yet. The paper looks legit to me. Publishing first on a pre-print archive is pretty standard precise.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.18.517004v2....


Paper from a peer reviewed repo, not press releases please

The actual paper is paywalled, so meh, I don't really know what the paper says.

I only know what the author of the article says the paper says.

So yeah, unless some of you have access to the PDF and want to share it, we're only discussing about an interpretation of a paper, not the paper itself.

(yeah, I know sci-hub exists)


This link is to the (non-paywall) original peer-reviewed article, which isn't cited in any of the pop-sci blurbs I've seen on this.

Standard disclaimer that this is a preprint that has not been peer reviewed.

Computer generated articles from much older technology than GPT3 have made it through peer review

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01436-7


SCIgen should be close enough. Nobody really reads the whitepaper, anyways.

https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/

next

Legal | privacy