EvidenceTable 01584 · Member profile
Clarification for “A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation”: the point beginning “State the study design and what was actually me...
Case 13 — A correction log that survives the next archive update The final note should distinguish corrected data transcription, changed source eviden...
Correction note for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: retain the wording beginning “Expand it on first use and name the…” in t...
Clarification for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: the point beginning “Expand it on first use and name the…” belongs to the ...
Separate document provenance, identity, purity and the conditions measured. A percentage without its method and sample linkage cannot establish all of...
Clarification for “Correlation in a small observational dataset”: the point beginning “Report sample size, potential confounders…” belongs to the ques...
Case 14 — An evidence table with room for negative findings Clarification for “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: the point beginning...
Case 7 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive A cited article now has an editorial notice. How should the archive respond? Exercise RE...
Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale where the paper provides them. Statistical significance alone does not establish practic...
Summary draft for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: the answer addresses “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outco...
Clarification for “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: the point beginning “Link both versions, record dates and check whether…” belongs to th...
Case 39 — A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation · source wording exercise A paper proposes a mechanism but the summary describe...
Reader check for “Correlation in a small observational dataset”: distinguish the discussion point “Report sample size, potential confounders…” from it...