문제 퀄 평가좀
게시글 주소: https://iu.orbi.kr/00068898278
---
Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific research, intended to ensure the quality and validity of published studies. However, this process has limitations that can affect the advancement of science. Peer review often relies on the opinions of a limited number of reviewers, which can lead to biases or narrow viewpoints. Reviewers may favor studies that align with current theories or those that are more likely to produce positive results, potentially overlooking innovative or unconventional research.
Additionally, the peer review process can be slow and may not always identify flaws in experimental design or analysis. This can delay the dissemination of important findings and impact the reproducibility of research. The system's emphasis on publication quantity over quality can also lead to pressure on researchers to produce results quickly, sometimes at the expense of thoroughness.
**_____________________________**
If these issues are not addressed, the peer review process may hinder scientific progress rather than facilitating it.
---
**Question:**
1. Consequently, the peer review system may inadvertently perpetuate existing biases and limit the scope of scientific inquiry.
2. Thus, the constraints of peer review can result in the exclusion of valuable but unconventional research.
3. Therefore, the peer review process might contribute to the slow advancement of scientific knowledge.
4. As a result, peer review may not always ensure the rigor and validity of scientific studies.
5. In conclusion, the limitations of peer review highlight the need for more innovative approaches to evaluating scientific research.
**Answer:**
Option
---
###
Scientific research often relies on funding from various sources, including government agencies, private companies, and non-profits. However, the source of funding can introduce biases into research outcomes. Studies funded by private companies may be more likely to produce results that favor the sponsor’s interests, potentially skewing the scientific evidence. Furthermore, the competitive nature of funding can pressure researchers to focus on topics that are more likely to attract financial support rather than on high-risk, high-reward research. This can lead to a concentration of resources in certain areas while neglecting others that are equally important but less lucrative. **_____________________________** If these biases are not addressed, funding sources may distort scientific research priorities and outcomes, impacting the integrity of scientific knowledge.
---
**Question:**
Which of the following best completes the blank in the article?
1. funding biases may compromise the objectivity of scientific research and skew results in favor of certain interests.
2.the reliance on specific funding sources can shape research priorities and influence outcomes.
3. the impact of funding on research may lead to a focus on topics that are more commercially viable rather than scientifically valuable.
4. funding biases can affect the impartiality and breadth of scientific studies.
5. addressing funding biases is essential for maintaining the integrity and diversity of scientific research.
**Answer:**
Option
0 XDK (+0)
유익한 글을 읽었다면 작성자에게 XDK를 선물하세요.
-
ㅇㅈ 11
...
-
갸루스타일 9
별로에요? 약간 세미갸루도 별로인가 와투케+갸루화장
-
여르비 ㅇㅈ 7
.
-
라유는 무료에요 18
아니지 무료해요
-
내일부터 연휴네요 20
다들 계획은 세우셨나요 으흐흐
-
ㅇㅈ 5
-
일주일 전에 할머니 돌아가셔서 장례 치렀는데 집 오니까 엄마가 당뇨 때문에...
-
재수학원에 8
돌핀팬츠, 크롭티 입고가면 어캐되나요?
-
Oops!
-
+ 정시 기준 등급대별로 대충 몇 년정도인지 궁금해요 ˳⚆ɞ⚆˳
-
요새 수능으로 원하는 학교를 갈수 있을지 자주 회의감이 듬 수능성적 상방도 엄청...
-
1년만에 연락함
-
항상 2임 어려워도2 쉬워도2 그냥 다 2임…… 항상 한두문제 차이로 갈림 그래서...
-
기출 돌리는 거 괜찮나여 아님 반복하는 게 더 나을까요 ?
-
제발 6
언제쯤 내 이상형을 볼수잇을까 왜 대학가도 없냐고
-
ㅇㅈ 8
안녕 멍멍이
-
꼴초 분들만 ㄱ 9
아저씨 냄새 안나고 좀 달달한거 없을까요? 비스타 피다가 질려서 갈아타려하는데...
-
나노메카 작년엔 17:1이었는데 올해는 8:1로 확 줄었네요 의대 증원때문에 이렇게 된걸까요?
-
오르비 간혹 보면 언변 말솜씨 뛰어나신 분들 많던데 난 뭔가 내 머릿속의 생각을...
-
오늘도 잠이 안오는군 16
놀아줄 사람
선지들 촘촘하네요 ㄷㄷ