Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
364
Posts
364
Users
0
Reactions
7
Views
18/02/2018 5:04 pm
Case 24 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods
Method note for “Reading an abstract without skipping the methods”: use “Identify population, design, comparator, outcome…” 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.
18/02/2018 5:12 pm
Case 24 — 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.
18/02/2018 5:25 pm
Case 24 — 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.
18/02/2018 5:55 pm
Case 24 — 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.
18/02/2018 6:43 pm
Case 25 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication · source wording exercise
A cited preprint has a later published version. How should an archive entry handle the relationship?
Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase. Use the original answer fragment “Publication status is useful context but is not itself a…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-00298/25: address this question within its stated limits.
18/02/2018 7:33 pm
Case 25 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication · source wording exercise
Clarification for “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: the point beginning “Publication status is useful context but is not itself a…” 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.
18/02/2018 7:54 pm
Case 25 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication · source wording exercise
Limit of the answer in “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: “Publication status is useful context but is not itself a…” 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.
18/02/2018 8:05 pm
Case 25 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication · source wording exercise
Method note for “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: use “Publication status is useful context but is not itself a…” 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.
18/02/2018 8:58 pm
Case 25 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication · source wording exercise
Summary draft for “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: the answer addresses “Publication status is useful context but is not itself a…”; the related point is “Link both versions, record dates and check whether…”. 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.
18/02/2018 9:10 pm
Case 25 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication · source wording exercise
Correction note for “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: retain the wording beginning “Publication status is useful context but is not itself a…” 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.
18/02/2018 9:34 pm
Case 25 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication · source wording exercise
Reader check for “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: distinguish the discussion point “Publication status is useful context but is not itself a…” 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.
18/02/2018 10:01 pm
Case 26 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · source wording exercise
A protocol summary omits conditions and controls. What makes the account reproducible?
Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase. Use the original answer fragment “Keep this as research documentation and do not turn…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-00298/26: address this question within its stated limits.
18/02/2018 10:42 pm
Case 26 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · source wording exercise
Clarification for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: the point beginning “Keep this as research documentation and do not turn…” 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.
18/02/2018 10:50 pm
Case 26 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · source wording exercise
Method note for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: use “Keep this as research documentation and do not turn…” 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.
18/02/2018 11:33 pm
Case 26 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · source wording exercise
Limit of the answer in “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: “Keep this as research documentation and do not turn…” 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.
Share: