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 ...
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.
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 ...
HEPs for each sub-task are entered into the tree; all failure branches must have a known probability, otherwise the system will fail to provide a final answer. HRAETs provide the function of breaking down the primary operator tasks into finer steps, which are represented in the form of successes and failures.
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 ...
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".