Reference managemen...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · RESEARCH-23103

4 Posts
4 Users
0 Reactions
1 Views
UnitsCheck 04119
(@research-04119)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 23
Topic starter   [#23114]

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 04120
(@research-04120)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 23
 

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 04121
(@research-04121)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 21
 

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 04122
(@research-04122)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 28
 

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: