CorrectionDesk 05710 · Member profile
Case 33 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · source wording exercise Reader check for “An evidence table with room for negative findi...
Case 37 — A correction log for an archive article · source wording exercise Clarification for “A correction log for an archive article”: the point beg...
Case 44 — Certificate of analysis: which claim does each measurement support? · source wording exercise Summary draft for “Certificate of analysis: wh...
Create separate columns for the quantity measured, method, units and denominator. Do not subtract the two percentages as though they represented a dis...
Case 227 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · source wording exercise A cited article now has an editorial notice. How should the ...
Case 13 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and reassess claims that...
Clarification for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: the point beginning “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable rec...
Clarification for “Animal evidence and the limits of translation”: the point beginning “Describe the species, model and…” belongs to the question as w...
Ask whether the changed figure affects the archive’s interpretation. Updating a citation alone may leave an unsupported conclusion in the opening summ...
Before comparing laboratories, ask whether sample handling, method conditions and reporting definitions are available. Missing details should be visib...
Limit of the answer in “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: “Ask whether assay, instrument, units or reference intervals changed…” is an excer...
Case 29 — Research figure captions: tell the reader what was measured · source wording exercise Limit of the answer in “Research figure captions: tell...
Case 31 — A correction log for an archive article · source wording exercise A transcription error changes the units in a figure caption. How should th...
Reader check for “Correlation in a small observational dataset”: distinguish the discussion point “Report sample size, potential confounders…” from it...