Literature notebook: study design, measurements and translation limits · RESEARCH-20722

Case 2 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion

Summary draft for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: the answer addresses “List materials, measurement conditions, controls and exclusions with enough…”; the related point is “Keep this as research documentation and do not turn…”. 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.

Case 3 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly

Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale where the paper provides them. Statistical significance alone does not establish practical or clinical importance.

Case 3 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly

Clarification for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: the point beginning “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…” 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.

Case 3 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly

Method note for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: use “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…” 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.

Case 3 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly

Correction note for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: retain the wording beginning “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…” 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.

Case 3 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly

Limit of the answer in “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…” 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.

Case 3 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly

Summary draft for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: the answer addresses “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…”; the related point is “Statistical significance alone does not establish…”. 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.

Case 4 — A correction log for an archive article

Identify the original error and the corrected text, date the correction and link the source. Keep the correction visible to readers who may have saved or cited the earlier version.

Case 4 — A correction log for an archive article

A transcription error changes the units in a figure caption. How should the archive record be repaired?

Exercise RESEARCH-20722/4: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 4 — A correction log for an archive article

Method note for “A correction log for an archive article”: use “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…” 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.

Case 4 — A correction log for an archive article

Clarification for “A correction log for an archive article”: the point beginning “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…” 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.

Case 4 — A correction log for an archive article

Limit of the answer in “A correction log for an archive article”: “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…” 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.

Case 4 — A correction log for an archive article

Correction note for “A correction log for an archive article”: retain the wording beginning “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…” 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.

Case 4 — A correction log for an archive article

Summary draft for “A correction log for an archive article”: the answer addresses “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…”; the related point is “Keep the correction visible to readers who may have…”. 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.

Case 5 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation

An animal experiment is cited as though it establishes a human outcome. What qualification is required?

Exercise RESEARCH-20722/5: address this question within its stated limits.