Not citing a secondary source for a reason [closed]

Question

I have already read the relevant questions, but mine is really different;

I found useful information in a paper, it (basically) says for a specific case that "they use up to %60 more torque" but when I go to original source I saw that, in the original paper one of the values was "%63 torque", so I wrote, "they expend about %60 extra torque" and I couldn't give reference to a secondary source, because it was wrong, and my sentence became different.

Similarly, a paper said that (just a part of it) "during walking on a flat surface". However, when I open the original source, I saw that the original source says "for unrestrained walking" which means "during normal walking", so I couldn't give citation to secondary sources for that sentence because I corrected a part of the information.

Similarly, again, another paper (briefly) said that "in that country 159.000 amputation occurs per year" but when I open the original source, I saw that it was 143.000 so; I write "in that country each year more than 140.000 limb loss occurs." so, I couldn't write reference to a secondary source, because information became different. But sentence structures are similar I do not know if it is plagiarism?

Note1: Please, do not choose "duplicate" because my question is different, I'm correcting some missing or falsified information and I need a help about it. Is it correct to citing just original source, because secondary source reflects the information in a different way/and I can not find that information in original source, so, I modify the information, and I just cite the original source? Because at secondary source, information is a bit or more different (falsified or reflected secondary author's interpretation)? (as I explained above)

Note2: For some of them, I use a summary of secondary sources but I do correction for wrong parts or falsified numbers/interpretations. So I think it becomes my summary? I do not know where to draw the line.

Answer 1

You are mixing up to different things. It sounds like you are copying the sentence structure of the secondary source. If this is the case, that is plagiarism. It doesn't matter if you cite the secondary source or not, as no one will know that the citation is referring to the sentence structure. The second issue is the facts. For these, you should be citing the primary source. You do not need to cite every source that has cited the primary source. It is generally much better to cite primary sources than secondary sources, because as you have discovered, things can get messy the further away from the primary source you go.

Answer 2

The general norm is to cite the original source even if you find about it in another paper. For example, if you find about "some method" in paper B where they cited the paper A for that method, it is your responsibility to cite A and B both. That being said, before citing paper A, it is expected from researchers to confirm that what was cited in B was correct, and not blindly cite paper B.

In your example, you found a paper that said it was 60% torque but the paper they cited for that had 63% torque, so in this case it depends what you want to mention. If you mention 63% then go with the original source, but you mention 60% then go with the secondary and original both because you found about it in the secondary paper. But again, you have to make sure that secondary paper inferred the results of original paper correctly. And same for the other examples.