Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
366
Posts
366
Users
0
Reactions
44
Views
05/04/2021 2:00 am
Case 48 — 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-11387/48: address this question within its stated limits.
05/04/2021 2:29 am
Case 48 — 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.
05/04/2021 3:06 am
Case 48 — 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.
05/04/2021 3:34 am
Case 48 — 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.
05/04/2021 3:58 am
Case 48 — 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.
05/04/2021 4:18 am
Case 48 — 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.
05/04/2021 5:04 am
Case 49 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · comparison exercise
A protocol summary omits conditions and controls. What makes the account reproducible?
Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it. Use the original answer fragment “List materials, measurement conditions, controls and exclusions with enough…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-11387/49: address this question within its stated limits.
05/04/2021 5:16 am
Case 48 — 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.
05/04/2021 5:26 am
Case 49 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · comparison exercise
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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
05/04/2021 5:52 am
Case 49 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · comparison exercise
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. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
05/04/2021 6:23 am
Case 49 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · comparison exercise
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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
05/04/2021 7:45 am
Case 49 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · comparison exercise
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. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
05/04/2021 8:07 am
Case 49 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · comparison exercise
Reader check for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: distinguish the discussion point “List materials, measurement conditions, controls and exclusions with enough…” 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.
05/04/2021 8:07 am
Case 49 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · comparison exercise
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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
05/04/2021 9:08 am
Case 50 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · comparison exercise
A result is described only as statistically significant. What information is missing?
Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it. Use the original answer fragment “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-11387/50: address this question within its stated limits.
Share: