Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The first occurrence of the term "evolutionary mismatch" may have been in a paper by Jack E. Riggs published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology in 1993. [7] In the years to follow, the term evolutionary mismatch has become widely used to describe biological maladaptations in a wide range of disciplines.
A reconstruction of the skull purportedly belonging to the Piltdown Man, a long-lasting case of scientific misconduct. Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in the publication of professional scientific research.
The sharing of research outputs is covered by three standards of the TOPs guidelines: on Data transparency (2), Analytic/code methods transparency (3) and Research materials transparency (4). All the relevant data, code and research materials are to be stored on a "trusted repository" and all analysis being already reproduced independently ...
Mismatch repair is a highly conserved process from prokaryotes to eukaryotes.The first evidence for mismatch repair was obtained from S. pneumoniae (the hexA and hexB genes).
Research integrity or scientific integrity became an autonomous concept within scientific ethics in the late 1970s. In contrast with other forms of ethical misconducts, the debate over research integrity is focused on "victimless offence" that only hurts "the robustness of scientific record and public trust in science". [3]
Scientific terminology is the part of the language that is used by scientists in the context of their professional activities. While studying nature, scientists often encounter or create new material or immaterial objects and concepts and are compelled to name them.
There are many philosophical and historical theories as to how scientific consensus changes over time. Because the history of scientific change is extremely complicated, and because there is a tendency to project "winners" and "losers" onto the past in relation to the current scientific consensus, it is very difficult to come up with accurate and rigorous models for scientific change. [17]
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".