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.
Matching is a statistical technique that evaluates the effect of a treatment by comparing the treated and the non-treated units in an observational study or quasi-experiment (i.e. when the treatment is not randomly assigned).
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 MMN is a response to a deviant within a sequence of otherwise regular stimuli; thus, in an experimental setting, it is produced when stimuli are presented in a many-to-one ratio; for example, in a sequence of sounds s s s s s s s d s s s s d s s s..., the d is the deviant or oddball stimulus, and will elicit an MMN response.
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).
As of 2024, Dias has had five of his research papers retracted, and five other papers have received an expression of concern. [266] [267] Victor Ninov (US), a nuclear chemist formerly at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, was dismissed from his position after falsifying his work on the discovery of elements 116 and 118. [268] [269]
A 2015 study of 100 psychology papers conducted by Open Science Collaboration has been confronted with the "lack of a single accepted definition" which "opened the door to controversy about their methodological approach and conclusions" and made it necessary to fall back on "subjective assessments" of result reproducibility.
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]