Notifications
Clear all
Lab work & testing
8
Posts
8
Users
0
Reactions
1
Views
Topic starter
05/02/2020 3:37 pm
A archive table has a transcription error in a unit label. A later publisher notice also changes a figure. How can the correction history distinguish those two events?
Record format: question; proposed response; source or method; limitation. Use a dated correction only if the underlying wording or evidence changes. Record RESEARCH-07324.
05/02/2020 4:58 pm
Use separate entries for the internal transcription correction and the publisher notice. They have different sources and may affect different claims.
05/02/2020 5:18 pm
Each entry should retain the date, old text, corrected text, reason and source reference. For a publisher notice, link the notice as well as the original paper.
05/02/2020 5:31 pm
Ask whether the changed figure affects the archive’s interpretation. Updating a citation alone may leave an unsupported conclusion in the opening summary.
05/02/2020 6:17 pm
Keep a visible correction near the affected material and a linked changelog entry. Readers who saved the earlier version should be able to understand what changed.
05/02/2020 6:54 pm
The final note should distinguish corrected data transcription, changed source evidence and revised interpretation. Preserve that distinction in subsequent exports.
05/02/2020 6:57 pm
If the source is not accessible, label the revision pending verification. An unavailable document is not a reason to invent its contents.
05/02/2020 7:48 pm
Clarification for “A correction log that survives the next archive update”: the point beginning “Use separate entries for the internal transcription correction…” 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.
Share: