Reference managemen...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · RESEARCH-23031

4 Posts
4 Users
0 Reactions
2 Views
UnitsCheck 03559
(@research-03559)
Eminent Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 24
Topic starter   [#23042]

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

Reply scope: address the opening question, explain the supporting record or reasoning, and state the limit of the answer.



   
Quote
CorrectionDesk 03560
(@research-03560)
Eminent Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 29
 

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.



   
ReplyQuote
MethodsReader 03561
(@research-03561)
Eminent Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 27
 

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.



   
ReplyQuote
CitationNotes 03562
(@research-03562)
Eminent Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 26
 

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.



   
ReplyQuote
Share: