Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
394
Posts
394
Users
0
Reactions
25
Views
12/01/2019 9:26 am
Case 50 — Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract? · comparison exercise
Clarification for “Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract?”: the point beginning “Was the analysis prespecified or exploratory, 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.
12/01/2019 9:42 am
Case 50 — Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract? · comparison exercise
Method note for “Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract?”: use “Was the analysis prespecified or exploratory, 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.
12/01/2019 10:06 am
Case 50 — Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract? · comparison exercise
Limit of the answer in “Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract?”: “Was the analysis prespecified or exploratory, 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.
12/01/2019 10:57 am
Case 50 — Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract? · comparison exercise
Correction note for “Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract?”: retain the wording beginning “Was the analysis prespecified or exploratory, 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.
12/01/2019 11:00 am
Case 50 — Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract? · comparison exercise
Summary draft for “Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract?”: the answer addresses “Was the analysis prespecified or exploratory, and…”; the related point is “Record what the paper states and mark unreported fields…”. 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.
12/01/2019 12:05 pm
Case 50 — Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract? · comparison exercise
Reader check for “Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract?”: distinguish the discussion point “Was the analysis prespecified or exploratory, 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.
12/01/2019 12:32 pm
Case 51 — A correction log that survives the next archive update · comparison exercise
Clarification for “A correction log that survives the next archive update”: the point beginning “Each entry should retain the date, old text, corrected…” 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.
12/01/2019 12:42 pm
Case 51 — A correction log that survives the next archive update · comparison exercise
A archive table has a transcription error in a unit label. A later publisher notice also changes a figure. How can the correction history distinguish those two events?
Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it. Use the original answer fragment “Each entry should retain the date, old text, corrected…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-03458/51: address this question within its stated limits.
12/01/2019 1:36 pm
Case 51 — A correction log that survives the next archive update · comparison exercise
Limit of the answer in “A correction log that survives the next archive update”: “Each entry should retain the date, old text, corrected…” 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.
12/01/2019 1:40 pm
Case 51 — A correction log that survives the next archive update · comparison exercise
Method note for “A correction log that survives the next archive update”: use “Each entry should retain the date, old text, corrected…” 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.
12/01/2019 2:14 pm
Case 51 — A correction log that survives the next archive update · comparison exercise
Correction note for “A correction log that survives the next archive update”: retain the wording beginning “Each entry should retain the date, old text, corrected…” 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.
12/01/2019 2:29 pm
Case 51 — A correction log that survives the next archive update · comparison exercise
Summary draft for “A correction log that survives the next archive update”: the answer addresses “Each entry should retain the date, old text, corrected…”; the related point is “For a publisher notice, link the notice as…”. 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.
12/01/2019 3:43 pm
Case 51 — A correction log that survives the next archive update · comparison exercise
Reader check for “A correction log that survives the next archive update”: distinguish the discussion point “Each entry should retain the date, old text, corrected…” 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.
12/01/2019 3:53 pm
Case 52 — Assay-specific reference ranges: what must travel with a result? · comparison exercise
Clarification for “Assay-specific reference ranges: what must travel with a result?”: the point beginning “Retain units, method, laboratory interval and collection context…” 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.
12/01/2019 4:11 pm
Case 52 — Assay-specific reference ranges: what must travel with a result? · comparison exercise
A value has been quoted without units, assay method or reference interval. What would make the discussion interpretable?
Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it. Use the original answer fragment “Retain units, method, laboratory interval and collection context…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-03458/52: address this question within its stated limits.
Share: