Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
8
Posts
8
Users
0
Reactions
1
Views
Topic starter
03/09/2019 4:38 pm
A archive table has a transcription error in a unit label. A later publisher notice also changes a figure. How can the correction history distinguish those two events?
Record format: question; proposed response; source or method; limitation. Use a dated correction only if the underlying wording or evidence changes. Record RESEARCH-05812.
03/09/2019 5:50 pm
Use separate entries for the internal transcription correction and the publisher notice. They have different sources and may affect different claims.
03/09/2019 5:57 pm
Each entry should retain the date, old text, corrected text, reason and source reference. For a publisher notice, link the notice as well as the original paper.
03/09/2019 6:20 pm
Ask whether the changed figure affects the archive’s interpretation. Updating a citation alone may leave an unsupported conclusion in the opening summary.
03/09/2019 7:10 pm
Keep a visible correction near the affected material and a linked changelog entry. Readers who saved the earlier version should be able to understand what changed.
03/09/2019 7:40 pm
If the source is not accessible, label the revision pending verification. An unavailable document is not a reason to invent its contents.
03/09/2019 8:10 pm
The final note should distinguish corrected data transcription, changed source evidence and revised interpretation. Preserve that distinction in subsequent exports.
03/09/2019 9:02 pm
Clarification for “A correction log that survives the next archive update”: the point beginning “Use separate entries for the internal transcription correction…” 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.
Share: