RMP.4:11 - SoTA-Echoing
Practice question. What should be retained and exposed so that a later reader can criticize actual research without confusing records, replay and scientific warrant?
Selected line. Adapt examination-relative provenance, timed change accounts and actually available access. Against either a final retrospective narrative or a publish-everything default, this preserves consequential differences with proportionate effort. The accepted trade-off is that some access-limited or irrecoverable material leaves narrower examinations possible rather than a universal openness or reproducibility claim.
| Comparison and source role | Adopt, adapt or reject; effect on the Method and limit |
|---|---|
| TOP 2025 distinguishes research practices and commitment artifacts. | Adapt the content-and-timing distinctions in §§4.2 and 4.4. Reject one badge as sufficient evidence of prospective choice. Disclosure and verification remain different; a trace records what survives. |
| Miske et al.’s Investigating reproducibility, published in 2026, supplies failure evidence. Workflow Run RO-Crate supplies an implementation example of run-relative provenance. | Adapt the input–transformation–run–output connections in §4.3. Reject availability of a data/code collection as sufficient recovery of a reported computation. The empirical study concerns papers from 2009–2018 and obtainable datasets; neither it nor the provenance format establishes RMP’s effectiveness or requires that format. |
| PRISMA-S supplies a bounded comparator for reporting searches. | Adapt the actual query, platform, date and retrieval-change trace in §4.3. Reject a clean final bibliography as an account of retrieval. Reporting does not establish search conduct or synthesis quality. |
| Braun and Clarke’s RTARG argument and review challenges generic qualitative reporting defaults; AHA’s professional standards make source and interpretation responsibility explicit. | Adapt method-sensitive contributions, contrary sources and supported reconstruction in §§4.2–4.4. Reject an undifferentiated methods narrative and a universal coding-agreement requirement. These practices guide criticism; they do not supply a historical or interpretive conclusion. |
| Carroll et al.’s Operationalizing CARE and FAIR is a serious correction to openness-only reasoning. | Adapt actual authority, permitted purpose and bounded access in §4.5. CARE’s Indigenous data-governance basis is retained; it is not reduced to a generic consent checklist. FAIR and open access are different, and no policy label proves that inspection is possible. |
| The European Commission’s Living guidelines on responsible generative AI use in research, third edition, May 2026, supplies proportional-use guidance. | Adapt the substantial contribution and human-responsibility account in §4.4. Reject both hidden research-shaping AI use and mandatory archiving of routine editing. The non-binding guidance does not guarantee stochastic-service replay or grant access to protected inputs. |
This is a reasoned combination of methodological guidance, bounded failure evidence and practical record arrangements, not a universal empirical guarantee. Reopen the affected trace requirement when a new receiving use needs different material, a source or service change defeats a relied-on connection, or a lower-burden qualified practice preserves the same examination without the added apparatus.