Reference-table workshop: comparable quantities and missing context · RESEARCH-09192

Case 35 — 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-09192/35: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 35 — 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.

Case 35 — 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.

Case 35 — 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.

Case 35 — 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.

Case 35 — 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.

Case 36 — 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-09192/36: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 36 — 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.

Case 36 — 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.

Case 36 — 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.

Case 36 — 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.

Case 36 — 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.

Case 36 — 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.

Case 37 — 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-09192/37: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 37 — 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.