Reference-table workshop: comparable quantities and missing context · RESEARCH-01212

Case 2 — A correction log for an archive article

Summary draft for “A correction log for an archive article”: the answer addresses “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…”; the related point is “Keep the correction visible to readers who may have…”. 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 3 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation

Clarification for “Animal evidence and the limits of translation”: the point beginning “Describe the species, model 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: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 3 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation

Describe the species, model and outcome actually studied. Differences in biology and study conditions limit translation; the finding is not a clinical recommendation.

Case 3 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation

Method note for “Animal evidence and the limits of translation”: use “Describe the species, model 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. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 3 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation

Limit of the answer in “Animal evidence and the limits of translation”: “Describe the species, model 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: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 3 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation

Correction note for “Animal evidence and the limits of translation”: retain the wording beginning “Describe the species, model 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. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 3 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation

Summary draft for “Animal evidence and the limits of translation”: the answer addresses “Describe the species, model and…”; the related point is “Differences in biology and study conditions limit translation; the…”. 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 4 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources

Locate the primary study and confirm that it measured the claimed outcome. Record when only a secondary account was accessible and avoid presenting it as direct verification.

Case 4 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources

A review cites another review for a claim about an experiment. How can the evidence chain be checked?

Exercise RESEARCH-01212/4: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 4 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources

Clarification for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: the point beginning “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…” 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 4 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources

Method note for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: use “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…” 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 4 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources

Limit of the answer in “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…” 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 4 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources

Correction note for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: retain the wording beginning “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…” 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 4 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources

Summary draft for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: the answer addresses “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…”; the related point is “Record when only a secondary account was accessible and…”. 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 5 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample

A collection of forum reports is being treated as a representative sample. What limitations belong in the note?

Exercise RESEARCH-01212/5: address this question within its stated limits.