Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In Denmark, scientific misconduct is defined as "intention[al] negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist", and in Sweden as "intention[al] distortion of the research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript form or ...
In aviation accidents and incidents, these contributing actions typically stem from human factor-related mistakes and pilot error, rather than mechanical failure. [ 1 ] [ 7 ] A study conducted by Boeing found that 55% of airline accidents between 1959 and 2005 were caused by such human related factors, while only 17% of accidents were caused by ...
In 1970, L. A. Marascuilo and J. R. Levin proposed a "fourth kind of error" – a "type IV error" – which they defined in a Mosteller-like manner as being the mistake of "the incorrect interpretation of a correctly rejected hypothesis"; which, they suggested, was the equivalent of "a physician's correct diagnosis of an ailment followed by the ...
Publication of studies on p-hacking and questionable research practices: Since the late 2000s, a number of studies in metascience showed how commonly adopted practices in many scientific fields, such as exploiting the flexibility of the process of data collection and reporting, could greatly increase the probability of false positive results.
[2] [5] [6] [7] Research suggests that scientists are taught various heuristics and practices that allow their investigations to benefit, and not suffer, from accidents. [2] [8] First, careful control conditions allow scientists to properly identify something as "unexpected". Once a finding is recognized as legitimately unexpected and in need ...
In survey-type situations, these errors can be mistakes in the collection of data, including both the incorrect recording of a response and the correct recording of a respondent's inaccurate response.
From the various figures and workings, it can be determined that the HEP for establishing air-based ventilation using the emergency purge ventilation equipment on In-tank Precipitation processing tanks 48 and 49 after a failure of the nitrogen purge system following a seismic event is 4.2 E-6.
[4] Many factors contribute to publication bias. [5] [6] For instance, once a scientific finding is well established, it may become newsworthy to publish reliable papers that fail to reject the null hypothesis. [7] Most commonly, investigators simply decline to submit results, leading to non-response bias.