Methods reading room: what analytical reports actually establish · RESEARCH-25905

Case 275 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · documentation exercise

Clarification for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: the point beginning “Do not leave the historical citation looking…” 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: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 275 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · documentation exercise

Method note for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: use “Do not leave the historical citation looking…” 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. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 275 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · documentation exercise

Limit of the answer in “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: “Do not leave the historical citation looking…” 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: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 275 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · documentation exercise

Correction note for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: retain the wording beginning “Do not leave the historical citation looking…” 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. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 275 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · documentation exercise

Summary draft for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: the answer addresses “Do not leave the historical citation looking…”; the related point is “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 275 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · documentation exercise

Reader check for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: distinguish the discussion point “Do not leave the historical citation looking…” from its proposed application. The thread offers a way to reason about the question, without adding a personal experience or a newly observed outcome. Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 276 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible · documentation exercise

A subgroup finding was not the primary planned analysis. How should it be summarised?

Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format. Use the original answer fragment “Treat exploratory findings as hypothesis-generating rather…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.

Exercise RESEARCH-25905/276: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 276 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible · documentation exercise

Clarification for “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: the point beginning “Treat exploratory findings as hypothesis-generating rather…” 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: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 276 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible · documentation exercise

Method note for “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: use “Treat exploratory findings as hypothesis-generating rather…” 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. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 276 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible · documentation exercise

Limit of the answer in “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: “Treat exploratory findings as hypothesis-generating rather…” 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: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 276 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible · documentation exercise

Correction note for “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: retain the wording beginning “Treat exploratory findings as hypothesis-generating rather…” 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. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 276 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible · documentation exercise

Reader check for “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: distinguish the discussion point “Treat exploratory findings as hypothesis-generating rather…” from its proposed application. The thread offers a way to reason about the question, without adding a personal experience or a newly observed outcome. Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 276 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible · documentation exercise

Summary draft for “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: the answer addresses “Treat exploratory findings as hypothesis-generating rather…”; the related point is “State whether it was prespecified and how…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 277 — Research figure captions: tell the reader what was measured · documentation exercise

A chart caption names a mechanism but omits the observed endpoint. How can the caption be made precise?

Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format. Use the original answer fragment “Interpretive discussion belongs alongside the evidence, not…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.

Exercise RESEARCH-25905/277: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 277 — Research figure captions: tell the reader what was measured · documentation exercise

Clarification for “Research figure captions: tell the reader what was measured”: the point beginning “Interpretive discussion belongs alongside the evidence, not…” 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: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.