Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
246
Posts
246
Users
0
Reactions
23
Views
Topic starter
16/07/2019 2:26 pm
Research reading room: a notebook of numbered synthetic discussion exercises. Each case has a question followed by up to six distinct responses.
The source question bank is finite. Later passes revisit a question with a named review focus, using short excerpts to examine scope, method, limitations or a summary. A new case number marks a separate exercise, not a new real event or a claim of historical community activity.
16/07/2019 3:56 pm
Case 1 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication
A cited preprint has a later published version. How should an archive entry handle the relationship?
Exercise RESEARCH-05338/1: address this question within its stated limits.
16/07/2019 3:59 pm
Case 1 — 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.
16/07/2019 4:45 pm
Case 1 — 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.
16/07/2019 4:58 pm
Case 1 — 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.
16/07/2019 5:13 pm
Case 1 — 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.
16/07/2019 5:48 pm
Case 1 — 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.
16/07/2019 6:28 pm
Case 1 — 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.
16/07/2019 7:17 pm
Case 2 — 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.
16/07/2019 7:19 pm
Case 2 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion
A protocol summary omits conditions and controls. What makes the account reproducible?
Exercise RESEARCH-05338/2: address this question within its stated limits.
16/07/2019 8:21 pm
Case 2 — 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.
16/07/2019 8:31 pm
Case 2 — 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.
16/07/2019 9:10 pm
Case 2 — 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.
16/07/2019 10:05 pm
Case 2 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion
Correction note for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: retain the wording beginning “List materials, measurement conditions, controls and exclusions with enough…” 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.
16/07/2019 10:32 pm
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.
Page 1 / 17
Next
Share: