Research Method Practice Principles Framework Sources and Edition Notes
RMP.Sources:1 - Source use and currentness
The source question for this repertoire is: Which cross-sector and design-family sources change research membership, allocation, operations and trace, the claim warranted by analysis, the useful examination of a credibility threat, warranted corpus synthesis, exact knowledge revision/return and situated Method improvement or retention?
| Source | Role in the available patterns | Limit preserved |
|---|---|---|
| OECD, Frascati Manual 2015 | Five-criterion cross-sector R&D comparator for RMP.1. | Primarily a statistical R&D methodology; it neither decides truth nor supplies a universal institutional gate. RMP.1 adapts all five criteria explicitly. |
| UNESCO, Recommendation on Open Science | Holder-neutral citizen/community participation and plural research actors. | Openness is constrained by ethics, safety, rights, confidentiality, security, access, and community authority. |
| MRC/NIHR, framework for complex interventions | Uncertainty-led plural perspectives, non-linear entry/reconsideration, and stopping for RMP.2. | Its intervention phases and health scope are not exported as a universal research lifecycle. |
| O’Brien et al., Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research | Transparency and flexibility cues for qualitative/reflexive work. | A reporting standard is not a design selector or proof of execution. |
| American Historical Association, Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct | Careful source use, methods/assumptions, evidence-interpretation relation, bias awareness, and alternative interpretations. | Professional standards do not supply one historical claim, archive access, or universal holder requirement. |
| Cochrane, Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions | Question-led eligibility, search, appraisal, and synthesis relation. | Intervention-review guidance is not a universal evidence hierarchy or a substitute for a traced qualified corpus. |
| National Academies, Reproducibility and Replicability in Science | Distinguishes computational reproduction from new-data replication. | Neither move is a universal successor, validation result, robustness result, or decision authority. |
| SCORE 2026 analytical robustness and replicability studies | Consequential analytical alternatives and explicit comparison criteria in RMP.5/RMP.6. | Their social/behavioural sampled fields, rates and tolerance conventions are not universal claim thresholds. |
| Flake and Fried, Measurement Schmeasurement, and Goos et al., measurement reliability, validity and reporting, 2026 | Methodological candidate and bounded failure evidence for connecting construct, measure, administration and context in RMP.3, then locating the actual use in RMP.4. | Reporting and reuse do not establish validity in the present context; Many Labs findings are not a universal research failure rate. |
| Lakens, Sample Size Justification | Quantitative information/precision rationale tied to the question and dependence, rather than an unexplained sample count. | A resource-limited design can remain insufficient; numerical planning and unlike qualitative/source-critical adequacy retain their applicable Methods. |
| SPIRIT 2025 and COS TOP 2025 | Consequential protocol detail and distinct timed registration, protocol and analysis intentions. | Trial reporting is not design-quality appraisal; a label does not establish a prospective commitment or require universal freezing. |
| Haven et al., qualitative preregistration Delphi study, and Braun and Clarke, RTARG and review | Informative starting commitments with method-appropriate evolution; a correction to treating generic reporting or coder agreement as universally appropriate. | Neither consensus nor the reflexive-TA critique validates one procedure for every qualitative tradition. |
| Rethlefsen et al., PRISMA-S | Search-version, source/platform/date and retrieval transparency for an actual trace. | Search reporting does not perform search, appraisal or synthesis; the supplied review question and qualified Methods govern those acts. |
| Miske et al., Investigating reproducibility, 2026, and Workflow Run RO-Crate | Failure evidence and an implementation example for the particular input–transformation–run–output connection. | The study concerns papers from 2009–2018 and obtainable datasets. A provenance format is optional and supplies neither scientific truth nor a performed reproduction test. |
| Carroll et al., Operationalizing CARE and FAIR | A correction to openness-only reasoning: actual data authority, purpose, access and the criticism each view permits. | CARE retains its Indigenous data-governance basis; FAIR is not identical to open access, and a policy does not establish inspectability. |
| European Commission, responsible generative AI use in research, third edition, May 2026 | Proportionate records of research-shaping AI contributions and the responsible person’s verification and decisions. | Non-binding guidance distinguishes substantial contribution from routine editing; retained outputs do not guarantee service replay or authorize disclosure. |
| Cochrane chapters 5, 10, 12, 13 and 15 | Reports/studies, quantitative combination and alternatives, missing contributions and bounded interpretation in RMP.7/RMP.8. | A model must fit its quantity and dependence; intervention-review guidance supplies neither a universal hierarchy nor a receiving decision. |
| Cochrane chapter 21, GRADE-CERQual and JBI mixed synthesis §8.3 | Context-preserving qualitative synthesis, finding-level confidence and question-relative integration or separate synthesis. | A confidence judgment is of its stated kind; transformed findings retain their source meaning and losses. These Methods do not turn an interpretation into prevalence. |
| Morris, White and Crowther, simulation-study design; Williams et al., simulation transparency; Pawel et al., failures and non-convergence | Aim, estimand, generating situations, performance, uncertainty and consequential failures for a selected RMP.9 comparison. | The established design anchor and newer reporting work do not select a study, supply its result or establish general Method superiority. |
Currentness was checked for the question/design uses on 3 October 2026, for the operationalization/trace methodological comparison on 6 September 2026, for the analytical and credibility distinctions on 8 September 2026, and for the synthesis and revision contributions on 8 September 2026. The Method-improvement source comparison is qualified on 8 September 2026 at its stated statistical, reflexive and historical reach; its Method Engineering stopping and acquisition contribution was rechecked on 9 September 2026. A later edition number alone reopens nothing. Reopen the affected source claim when a new source changes a criterion, family-specific criticism, participation boundary, or use limit; when a cited current web source changes the relied-on content; or when a serious omitted alternative can change an RMP disposition.
RMP.10 uses Critical Decision Method for retrospective critical-incident cues and process mining for recorded event relations; neither source supplies the combined candidate-account synthesis. RMP.11 uses process-tracing and historical-evidence contributions for diagnostic comparisons, with C.28 retaining causal-use authority. Their complete source contributions, serious alternatives and limits are stated in their own SoTA sections.
Sources are selected by answer-changing role, not citation count. Pattern-body SoTA sections state the exact mutation and serious alternative. Domain sources still govern the actual failure mechanism, salinity measure, historical source, instrument, safety condition, or other claim at issue.
The shared-architecture account explains what the sources contribute to the connected research Methods.
RMP.Sources:2 - Edition return
Research Method Practice Principles Framework — First Edition designates this Readme, Table of Contents, Architectural Reference, six reading Parts, twelve ordinary practical entries, five connected applications, framework boundary and refresh account, and the complete RMP.1–RMP.11 bodies.
The eleven-pattern repertoire preserves direct entry and useful completion. Disciplinary techniques, case-specific results and receiving decisions retain their actual owners; completeness here does not claim a comprehensive handbook for every research field.
RMP.Sources:3 - Citation
Levenchuk, Anatoly. Research Method Practice Principles Framework — First Edition. Version 4 October 2026. Developed and reviewed with AI assistance. Publication.
For a particular pattern, add its PatternID and title to this dated citation. The date identifies the cited version; the availability account identifies which bodies it supplies.
The Architectural Reference explains the connected language and the consequences of these sources for its use.