Archive correction log: source versions, units and publisher notices · RESEARCH-08683

Case 47 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · source wording exercise

Reader check for “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: distinguish the discussion point “Separate the authors’ interpretation from the…” 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 48 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording exercise

Clarification for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: the point beginning “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…” 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 48 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording exercise

Method note for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: use “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…” 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. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 48 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording exercise

Limit of the answer in “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…” 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 48 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording exercise

Correction note for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: retain the wording beginning “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…” 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. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 48 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording exercise

Summary draft for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: the answer addresses “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…”; the related point is “Ask whether assay, instrument, units or reference intervals changed…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 49 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · comparison exercise

A cited article now has an editorial notice. How should the archive respond?

Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it. Use the original answer fragment “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.

Exercise RESEARCH-08683/49: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 48 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording exercise

Reader check for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: distinguish the discussion point “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…” 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 49 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · comparison exercise

Clarification for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: the point beginning “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and…” 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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.

Case 49 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · comparison exercise

Method note for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: use “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and…” 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. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.

Case 49 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · comparison exercise

Limit of the answer in “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and…” 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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.

Case 49 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · comparison exercise

Correction note for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: retain the wording beginning “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and…” 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. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.

Case 49 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · comparison exercise

Summary draft for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: the answer addresses “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and…”; the related point is “Do not leave the historical citation looking…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.

Case 49 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · comparison exercise

Reader check for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: distinguish the discussion point “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and…” 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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.

Case 50 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible · comparison exercise

A subgroup finding was not the primary planned analysis. How should it be summarised?

Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it. Use the original answer fragment “State whether it was prespecified and how…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.

Exercise RESEARCH-08683/50: address this question within its stated limits.