- That last point I've been on a soapbox about for a long time. Just because it's peer-reviewed doesn't mean you should *believe* it now. Most published papers (including my own) have flaws, shortcomings, outright errors, etc. Show me a few replications first and the needle moves a bit
- 4/5) Indeed, this test - the test of time - doesn't need peer review, not even a little bit. Some of the most important results I've seen my lab and others build off of came from preprints. And, *we should treat peer reviewed articles with the same skepticism we treat preprints*!
