Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
323
Posts
323
Users
0
Reactions
38
Views
03/02/2019 1:11 pm
Case 24 — 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.
03/02/2019 1:35 pm
Case 24 — 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.
03/02/2019 1:54 pm
Case 24 — 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.
03/02/2019 2:15 pm
Case 25 — 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-03707/25: address this question within its stated limits.
03/02/2019 2:17 pm
Case 24 — 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.
03/02/2019 2:54 pm
Case 25 — 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.
03/02/2019 3:18 pm
Case 25 — 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.
03/02/2019 3:45 pm
Case 25 — 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.
03/02/2019 4:44 pm
Case 25 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · source wording exercise
Correction note for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: retain the wording beginning “Keep this as research documentation and do not turn…” 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.
03/02/2019 4:53 pm
Case 25 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · source wording exercise
Summary draft for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: the answer addresses “Keep this as research documentation and do not turn…”; the related point is “List materials, measurement conditions, controls and exclusions with enough…”. 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.
03/02/2019 5:45 pm
Case 25 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · source wording exercise
Reader check for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: distinguish the discussion point “Keep this as research documentation and do not turn…” 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.
03/02/2019 6:24 pm
Case 26 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · source wording exercise
Clarification for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: the point beginning “Statistical significance alone does not establish…” 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.
03/02/2019 6:32 pm
Case 26 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · source wording exercise
A result is described only as statistically significant. What information is missing?
Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase. Use the original answer fragment “Statistical significance alone does not establish…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-03707/26: address this question within its stated limits.
03/02/2019 7:24 pm
Case 26 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · source wording exercise
Method note for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: use “Statistical significance alone does not establish…” 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.
03/02/2019 7:27 pm
Case 26 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · source wording exercise
Limit of the answer in “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: “Statistical significance alone does not establish…” 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: