Archive correction log: source versions, units and publisher notices · RESEARCH-13327

Case 5 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion

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

Exercise RESEARCH-13327/5: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 5 — 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 5 — 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 5 — 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.

Case 5 — 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.

Case 5 — 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.

Case 6 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly

A result is described only as statistically significant. What information is missing?

Exercise RESEARCH-13327/6: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 6 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly

Clarification for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: the point beginning “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…” 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 6 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly

Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale where the paper provides them. Statistical significance alone does not establish practical or clinical importance.

Case 6 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly

Method note for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: use “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…” 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 6 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly

Limit of the answer in “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…” 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 6 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly

Correction note for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: retain the wording beginning “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…” 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 6 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly

Summary draft for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: the answer addresses “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…”; the related point is “Statistical significance alone does not establish…”. 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 7 — A correction log for an archive article

A transcription error changes the units in a figure caption. How should the archive record be repaired?

Exercise RESEARCH-13327/7: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 7 — A correction log for an archive article

Identify the original error and the corrected text, date the correction and link the source. Keep the correction visible to readers who may have saved or cited the earlier version.