SourceIndex 01607 · Member profile
Method note for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: use “Ask whether assay, instrument, units or reference intervals changed…” as a row headi...
Identify the original error and the corrected text, date the correction and link the source. Keep the correction visible to readers who may have saved...
Case 46 — A correction log that survives the next archive update · source wording exercise Summary draft for “A correction log that survives the next ...
Case 9 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources Correction note for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary ...
Case 11 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible A subgroup finding was not the primary planned analysis. How should it be summarised? ...
Case 3 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and reassess claims that ...
Case 123 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · correction exercise How can a reading table avoid highlighting only positive outcomes? ...
Case 8 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication Clarification for “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: the point beginning “Link both versi...
Explain the study’s scope and limitations without recommending a treatment change. Individual decisions belong with a qualified clinician who can asse...
Case 6 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources Method note for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sour...
Case 30 — A correction log that survives the next archive update · source wording exercise Summary draft for “A correction log that survives the next ...
If the source is not accessible, label the revision pending verification. An unavailable document is not a reason to invent its contents.
Use separate entries for the internal transcription correction and the publisher notice. They have different sources and may affect different claims.