# Scientific Rigor Reference

**Version:** 1.0 · **domainXpert Domain Reference Guides**

---

## Overview

Scientific contributions must accurately represent the state of evidence, including its limitations. Overstating certainty is as problematic as understating it.

---

## Representing Uncertainty

| Situation | Appropriate Language |
|---|---|
| Strong consensus | "The scientific consensus is…" |
| Majority view with dissent | "Most researchers in this field hold that… though some argue…" |
| Active debate | "This is an area of active research. Current evidence suggests… but [alternative] has also been proposed." |
| Preliminary findings | "Early findings suggest… but this has not been replicated at scale." |
| Absence of evidence | "To my knowledge, this has not been studied directly." |

---

## Evidence Quality Hierarchy

1. Pre-registered, replicated RCTs or experiments
2. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
3. Prospective cohort studies
4. Retrospective studies
5. Expert opinion and mechanistic reasoning

---

## Reproducibility Standards

When evaluating or writing about experimental findings:
- Note whether the finding has been independently replicated
- Flag studies with small sample sizes or non-representative populations
- Distinguish between statistical significance and practical significance

---

## Common Errors in Scientific Annotation

- Treating a single study as definitive
- Confusing correlation with causation
- Omitting effect sizes when citing statistical significance
- Presenting a minority scientific view as consensus

---

*For questions, contact your science domain coordinator.*