Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
15
Posts
15
Users
0
Reactions
0
Views
Topic starter
09/01/2021 1:09 pm
A cited article now has an editorial notice. How should the archive respond?
Reply scope: address the opening question, explain the supporting record or reasoning, and state the limit of the answer.
09/01/2021 2:22 pm
Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and reassess claims that relied on the paper. Do not leave the historical citation looking like unqualified current support.
09/01/2021 3:11 pm
Clarification for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: the point beginning “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date 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.
09/01/2021 3:15 pm
Method note for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: use “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date 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.
09/01/2021 4:02 pm
Limit of the answer in “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date 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.
09/01/2021 4:26 pm
Summary draft for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: the answer addresses “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and…”; the related point is “Do not leave the historical citation looking…”. 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.
09/01/2021 4:29 pm
Correction note for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: retain the wording beginning “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date 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.
09/01/2021 4:52 pm
Reader check for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: distinguish the discussion point “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and…” 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: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
09/01/2021 5:30 pm
Clarification for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: the point beginning “Do not leave the historical citation looking…” 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.
09/01/2021 6:05 pm
Method note for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: use “Do not leave the historical citation looking…” 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.
09/01/2021 6:35 pm
Limit of the answer in “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: “Do not leave the historical citation looking…” 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.
09/01/2021 7:15 pm
Correction note for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: retain the wording beginning “Do not leave the historical citation looking…” 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.
09/01/2021 7:21 pm
Summary draft for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: the answer addresses “Do not leave the historical citation looking…”; the related point is “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date 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.
09/01/2021 8:14 pm
Reader check for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: distinguish the discussion point “Do not leave the historical citation looking…” 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: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
09/01/2021 8:34 pm
Clarification for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: the point beginning “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
Share: