Reference managemen...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · RESEARCH-16167

4 Posts
4 Users
0 Reactions
1 Views
EvidenceTable 06954
(@research-06954)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 26
Topic starter   [#16178]

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
ArchiveReader 06955
(@research-06955)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 25
 

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
StudyDesign 06956
(@research-06956)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 24
 

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
SourceIndex 06957
(@research-06957)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 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: