Whenever this kind of thing happens, you get a lot of people advocating for the abolition of peer review and its replacement with Twitter or something. I simply don't understand that.
Normal peer review means "we showed our work to about 2 people who know what they're talking about and they thought it was okay."
Preprints mean "nobody who knows what they're talking about has looked at this carefully yet, but we think it's okay."
Viral Twitter threads mean "here's my opinion, which hasn't been shown to anybody who actually knows what they're talking about, but which has been selected for maximum public response."
Of course, in all cases, real credibility only comes once a paper has been looked over by hundreds of people who know what they're talking about. Yes, showing something to only 2 experts (who themselves are very busy, and are powerless to directly verify many of the paper's claims) is not a perfect initial quality cut -- but no cut at all is worse.
If you really believe in the power of Twitter, take a long, hard look at the sensational, outrageous tweets you've liked. Go look at a sample of 100 old threads and see how many actually held up. The accuracy rate will not even be comparable to the Lancet's.
Normal peer review means "we showed our work to about 2 people who know what they're talking about and they thought it was okay."
Preprints mean "nobody who knows what they're talking about has looked at this carefully yet, but we think it's okay."
Viral Twitter threads mean "here's my opinion, which hasn't been shown to anybody who actually knows what they're talking about, but which has been selected for maximum public response."
Of course, in all cases, real credibility only comes once a paper has been looked over by hundreds of people who know what they're talking about. Yes, showing something to only 2 experts (who themselves are very busy, and are powerless to directly verify many of the paper's claims) is not a perfect initial quality cut -- but no cut at all is worse.
If you really believe in the power of Twitter, take a long, hard look at the sensational, outrageous tweets you've liked. Go look at a sample of 100 old threads and see how many actually held up. The accuracy rate will not even be comparable to the Lancet's.