Archive correction log: source versions, units and publisher notices · RESEARCH-12503

Case 11 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods

Limit of the answer in “Reading an abstract without skipping the methods”: “Identify population, design, comparator, outcome…” 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 11 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods

Summary draft for “Reading an abstract without skipping the methods”: the answer addresses “Identify population, design, comparator, outcome…”; the related point is “Assess whether the conclusion extends beyond the measurements and note what…”. 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 11 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods

Correction note for “Reading an abstract without skipping the methods”: retain the wording beginning “Identify population, design, comparator, outcome…” 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 12 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication

Link both versions, record dates and check whether methods or conclusions changed. Publication status is useful context but is not itself a guarantee that a finding is correct.

Case 12 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication

A cited preprint has a later published version. How should an archive entry handle the relationship?

Exercise RESEARCH-12503/12: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 12 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication

Method note for “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: use “Link both versions, record dates and check whether…” 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 12 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication

Clarification for “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: the point beginning “Link both versions, record dates and check whether…” 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 12 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication

Correction note for “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: retain the wording beginning “Link both versions, record dates and check whether…” 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 12 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication

Limit of the answer in “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: “Link both versions, record dates and check whether…” 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 13 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion

A protocol summary omits conditions and controls. What makes the account reproducible?

Exercise RESEARCH-12503/13: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 12 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication

Summary draft for “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: the answer addresses “Link both versions, record dates and check whether…”; the related point is “Publication status is useful context but is not itself a…”. 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 13 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion

Clarification for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: the point beginning “List materials, measurement conditions, controls and exclusions with enough…” 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 13 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion

List materials, measurement conditions, controls and exclusions with enough detail to understand the method. Keep this as research documentation and do not turn it into instructions for human self-experimentation.

Case 13 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion

Method note for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: use “List materials, measurement conditions, controls and exclusions with enough…” 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 13 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion

Limit of the answer in “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: “List materials, measurement conditions, controls and exclusions with enough…” 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.