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 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 ...
A system to distinguish papers from "good" and "bad" would be beneficial to researchers. This system may save the reputation of scientists and researchers. Most researchers publish honest work and sometimes simple mistakes happen to be overlooked by the peer review process. Retraction should not be for simple spelling errors, but for inaccurate ...
Two meta-analyses of the efficacy of reboxetine as an antidepressant demonstrated attempts to detect publication bias in clinical trials. Based on positive trial data, reboxetine was originally passed as a treatment for depression in many countries in Europe and the UK in 2001 (though in practice it is rarely used for this indication).
Corrigendum is the gerundive form of the Latin compound verb corrigo -rexi -rectum (from the verb rego, "to make straight, rule", plus the preposition cum, "with"), "to correct", [3] and thus signifies [4] "(those things) which must be corrected" and in its single form Corrigendum it means "(that thing) which must be corrected".
A leak in 1972 led to cessation of the study and severe legal ramifications. It has been widely regarded as the "most infamous biomedical research study in U.S. history". [62] Because of the public outrage, in 1974 Congress passed the National Research Act, to provide for protection of human subjects in experiments. The National Commission for ...
HARKing (hypothesizing after the results are known) is an acronym coined by social psychologist Norbert Kerr [1] that refers to the questionable research practice of "presenting a post hoc hypothesis in the introduction of a research report as if it were an a priori hypothesis".
We do not need to qualify our description of that ruling based on a mistake made four years after the fact, especially given that the same journalist at the same paper got it right in his initial coverage. A May 2023 article in The New York Times reports that King Charles III "represents nearly 1,000 years of unbroken royal lineage". This is ...