How the registry works
The registry sets every claim that circulates in archery coaching against the studies that bear on it. Here we explain the rules: what gets in, how a status is assigned, who checks the work and how it gets corrected.
What gets in
A study enters the registry when it measures something about archery: technique, training, the mental side, equipment, competition, the health of the people who shoot. Archers of every discipline count, kyudo and traditional archery included, and so do beginners when something is measured on their shooting. Laboratory tests on equipment without archers also get in, as do models and simulations, and reviews of these studies.
Left out are writings on history, culture or club management that measure nothing about shooting, studies where archery is only mentioned, and those published in venues we judge to be predatory. Studies on patients and clinical populations appear in the list of sources but never support a claim.
Every source gets in only after its bibliographic details have been checked on Crossref, DataCite, PubMed, the publisher's page or, for books, Open Library: title, authors, year, journal. Nothing from memory. Every study is read in full, not from the abstract. When all we have is the abstract, the study stays an entry in the list and does not get a page of its own.
The eight statuses
Every claim has a status, which says how well it holds up against the studies:
- Corroborated
- Several studies on archers, with adequate designs, point the same way.
- Reported
- There is supporting evidence on archers, but it is limited: one study, few participants or only an association.
- Contested
- Studies on archers point in opposite directions.
- Transferred
- No direct evidence on archers: the claim rests on studies of other sports or the general population.
- Contradicted
- What evidence there is goes against the claim, but it is thin or indirect: a single study on archers, few participants, or only studies from other sports.
- Refuted
- Several studies on archers, with adequate designs, show the opposite or no effect.
- Not studied
- No relevant evidence.
- Predicted
- The Lab has registered a testable prediction and is waiting for the outcome.
A single study is never enough for corroborated or refuted. The status describes the evidence as it stands today and passes no verdicts: in the registry you will find no rulings, only studies, numbers and their weight.
The history, year by year
A claim's status changes when new studies arrive, and the registry keeps the history of every change. Each time the picture changed there is a dated entry: the first study to ask the question, the first on archers, the first against, the ones that move the status up or down. The status for each year is judged only on the studies published up to that year.
That is what the slider at the top of every claim is for: move it and you see what was known then, with later evidence marked as such. Each entry also shows the date on which the registry recorded it.
Corrections and versions
Every claim has a version number and the date of its last review. When a status changes, a new claim comes in or we correct a mistake, the change appears in What has changed, with its date. We never remove anything quietly: if a note contained an error, we correct it and say so.
What the registry does not do
The registry describes what the studies say; it does not tell anyone how to shoot or how to train. It also has limits worth stating: archery research is concentrated in a few countries, on few archers per study and mostly on the recurve; and studies with null results get published less often than others.
Report a study or an error
If you know of a study that is missing, or find a number, a source or a status that does not add up, write to me. I read every report myself, and if something changes you will find it in What has changed.
Your email program opens with my address and an outline to fill in. If it does not open, write to [email protected].