Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
10
Posts
10
Users
0
Reactions
1
Views
Topic starter
06/09/2019 1:40 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-05836.
06/09/2019 2:56 pm
Use separate entries for the internal transcription correction and the publisher notice. They have different sources and may affect different claims.
06/09/2019 2:57 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.
06/09/2019 3:55 pm
Ask whether the changed figure affects the archive’s interpretation. Updating a citation alone may leave an unsupported conclusion in the opening summary.
06/09/2019 4:21 pm
If the source is not accessible, label the revision pending verification. An unavailable document is not a reason to invent its contents.
06/09/2019 4:32 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.
06/09/2019 5:17 pm
The final note should distinguish corrected data transcription, changed source evidence and revised interpretation. Preserve that distinction in subsequent exports.
06/09/2019 5:58 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.
06/09/2019 6:29 pm
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.
06/09/2019 6:50 pm
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.
Share: