Methods reading room: what analytical reports actually establish · RESEARCH-31193

Case 22 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation

Describe the species, model and outcome actually studied. Differences in biology and study conditions limit translation; the finding is not a clinical recommendation.

Case 22 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation

Method note for “Animal evidence and the limits of translation”: use “Describe the species, model and…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 22 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation

Limit of the answer in “Animal evidence and the limits of translation”: “Describe the species, model and…” is an excerpt from the discussion, not an independent verification. A reader needs the relevant original material before treating an interpretation as established. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 22 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation

Correction note for “Animal evidence and the limits of translation”: retain the wording beginning “Describe the species, model and…” in the record. If later material changes it, add the date, the changed wording and the source for that change; do not invent a completed correction here. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 22 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation

Summary draft for “Animal evidence and the limits of translation”: the answer addresses “Describe the species, model and…”; the related point is “Differences in biology and study conditions limit translation; the…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 23 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources

A review cites another review for a claim about an experiment. How can the evidence chain be checked?

Exercise RESEARCH-31193/23: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 23 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources

Locate the primary study and confirm that it measured the claimed outcome. Record when only a secondary account was accessible and avoid presenting it as direct verification.

Case 23 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources

Clarification for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: the point beginning “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 23 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources

Method note for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: use “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 23 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources

Limit of the answer in “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…” is an excerpt from the discussion, not an independent verification. A reader needs the relevant original material before treating an interpretation as established. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 23 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources

Correction note for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: retain the wording beginning “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…” in the record. If later material changes it, add the date, the changed wording and the source for that change; do not invent a completed correction here. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 42 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication · source wording exercise

A cited preprint has a later published version. How should an archive entry handle the relationship?

Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase. Use the original answer fragment “Publication status is useful context but is not itself a…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.

Exercise RESEARCH-31193/42: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 35 — Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract? · source wording exercise

Method note for “Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract?”: use “The reader should be able to see what was…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 45 — A correction log for an archive article · source wording exercise

Method note for “A correction log for an archive article”: use “Keep the correction visible to readers who may have…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 23 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources

Summary draft for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: the answer addresses “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…”; the related point is “Record when only a secondary account was accessible and…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.