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 others, it is purposeful and for the gain of the perpetrator. When the statistical reason involved is false or misapplied, this constitutes a statistical fallacy. The consequences of such misinterpretations can be quite severe. For example, in medical science, correcting a falsehood may take decades and cost lives. Misuses can be easy to ...
Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in the publication of professional scientific research. It is violation of scientific integrity: violation of the scientific method and of research ethics in science, including in the design, conduct, and reporting of research. A Lancet review ...
Exploring a forking decision-tree while analyzing data was at one point grouped with the multiple comparisons problem as an example of poor statistical method. However Gelman and Loken demonstrated [2] that this can happen implicitly by researchers aware of best practices who only make a single comparison and only evaluate their data once.
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.
Research integrity or scientific integrity is an aspect of research ethics that deals with best practice or rules of professional practice of scientists. First introduced in the 19th century by Charles Babbage , the concept of research integrity came to the fore in the late 1970s.
For example, confirmation bias produces systematic errors in scientific research based on inductive reasoning (the gradual accumulation of supportive evidence). Similarly, a police detective may identify a suspect early in an investigation, but then may only seek confirming rather than disconfirming evidence.
Many scientific misconceptions occur because of faulty teaching styles and the sometimes distancing nature of true scientific texts. Because students' prior knowledge and misconceptions are important factors for learning science, science teachers should be able to identify and address these conceptions.