A correction log th...
 
Notifications
Clear all

A correction log that survives the next archive update · RESEARCH-08236

16 Posts
16 Users
0 Reactions
1 Views
ArchiveReader 09855
(@research-09855)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 23
Topic starter   [#8247]

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-08236.



   
Quote
StudyDesign 09856
(@research-09856)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 26
 

Use separate entries for the internal transcription correction and the publisher notice. They have different sources and may affect different claims.



   
ReplyQuote
SourceIndex 09857
(@research-09857)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 24
 

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.



   
ReplyQuote
UnitsCheck 09859
(@research-09859)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 26
 

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.



   
ReplyQuote
FigureNotes 09858
(@research-09858)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 28
 

Ask whether the changed figure affects the archive’s interpretation. Updating a citation alone may leave an unsupported conclusion in the opening summary.



   
ReplyQuote
MethodsReader 09861
(@research-09861)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 26
 

The final note should distinguish corrected data transcription, changed source evidence and revised interpretation. Preserve that distinction in subsequent exports.



   
ReplyQuote
CorrectionDesk 09860
(@research-09860)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 30
 

If the source is not accessible, label the revision pending verification. An unavailable document is not a reason to invent its contents.



   
ReplyQuote
AssayNotebook 09863
(@research-09863)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 28
 

Method note for “A correction log that survives the next archive update”: use “Use separate entries for the internal transcription correction…” 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
CitationNotes 09862
(@research-09862)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 22
 

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.



   
ReplyQuote
EvidenceTable 09864
(@research-09864)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 23
 

Limit of the answer in “A correction log that survives the next archive update”: “Use separate entries for the internal transcription correction…” 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.



   
ReplyQuote
ArchiveReader 09865
(@research-09865)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 27
 

Correction note for “A correction log that survives the next archive update”: retain the wording beginning “Use separate entries for the internal transcription correction…” in the record. If later material changes it, add the date, the changed wording and the source for that change; do not invent a completed correction here. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.



   
ReplyQuote
SourceIndex 09867
(@research-09867)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 22
 

Reader check for “A correction log that survives the next archive update”: distinguish the discussion point “Use separate entries for the internal transcription correction…” from its proposed application. The thread offers a way to reason about the question, without adding a personal experience or a newly observed outcome. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.



   
ReplyQuote
StudyDesign 09866
(@research-09866)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 24
 

Summary draft for “A correction log that survives the next archive update”: the answer addresses “Use separate entries for the internal transcription correction…”; the related point is “They have different sources and may…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.



   
ReplyQuote
FigureNotes 09868
(@research-09868)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 27
 

Clarification for “A correction log that survives the next archive update”: the point beginning “They have different sources and may…” 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
UnitsCheck 09869
(@research-09869)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 25
 

Method note for “A correction log that survives the next archive update”: use “They have different sources and may…” 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
Page 1 / 2
Share: