Identify
Record the research question, publication type, sample, population, setting and original source.
Know what a study
can and cannot prove.
This guide explains how to tell a useful finding from a claim that goes further than the research allows.
What qualifies for the library
A research record must lead back to an original paper, official report, publisher, or recognised research index. Blogs, campaign statistics, and claims that cannot be checked against their original source are not treated as evidence.
Attribute
Describe findings as the authors’ reported results. Policy conclusions remain attributed to their authors.
Look for other explanations
Ask whether income, conflict, earlier caregiving, family choice, the measures used, or differences between groups could explain the result.
Update
Link later replications, critiques and syntheses without rewriting the historical record.
Several studies combined
Reviews of the wider research
These show whether a finding keeps appearing across different studies. A review is only as reliable as the studies it includes and the fairness of its search and comparison methods.
Children followed or groups compared
Individual research studies
Following children over time can show which event happened first. Comparing existing families can reveal important patterns, but family differences may still explain the result.
Research translated into guidance
Expert and consensus papers
These can explain how specialists interpret a body of research. Agreement between experts is useful context, but it is not a new test of what happened to children.
How sources are usedIncluded as evidence Included as context Not treated as evidence
Original research stays separate from commentary.
The library distinguishes original research and official reports from commentary, summaries, news articles, and advocacy claims. A factual claim is treated as evidence only when it can be checked against an original publication or authoritative data source.
Original studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, scholarly consensus papers, and official research reports with a traceable source.
Scholarly critiques and legal commentary, clearly labelled so readers do not mistake interpretation for new empirical data.
Blogs, advocacy statistics, unsourced summaries, and secondary claims that cannot be verified against the underlying publication.
Editorial review record
The current collection was reviewed as one batch.
All 28 research records in the current collection carry the same review date because they were checked together against their linked scholarly sources on 22 July 2026. Later additions and substantive corrections should carry the date on which that individual record was checked or changed.