Notifications
Clear all
Corrections & citations
5
Posts
5
Users
0
Reactions
2
Views
Topic starter
18/04/2020 5:00 pm
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.
18/04/2020 5:41 pm
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.
18/04/2020 6:48 pm
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.
18/04/2020 7:10 pm
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.
18/04/2020 7:48 pm
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.
Share: