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.
-
수면제 먹고 4
안 일어났으면 좋겠다 라는 생각도 들다가 ... 또 일어나면 누구보다 열심히...
-
여러분들은 4
문제 다 풀면 책 버리시나요?
-
수탐 매일 월수금 국어 화목토 영어 뭐 이런식으로 하는분 안계심?
-
기아개패는 대헌곤번트 걍 ㅋㅋ
-
고정적으로 100분 다 쓰고 점수는 개판으로 받슴돠!!
-
전문을 읽어봤는데 되게 여운이 많이 남네…
-
경기 모 외고 졸업 03 초딩때부터 연고대 목표 2학년 때까지 내신 서성한 어문...
-
수학 커리 조언 3
현우진 커리타면서 과외받는데 수분감은 스텝1만 겨울방학에 풀고 뉴런 시냅스는...
-
3-4등급따리가 이해원 N제 하기엔 많이 어렵나유? 배울점 많고 퀄좋은 입문엔제도 추천해주세여,,,
-
운동을 어떻게 해야할까요 푸쉬업말구 할 수 있는게 없네..
-
넓이로 요리조리 하는거 재밌네요강대x는 어떨까
-
짤녀 어떰? 3
우리 애깅이
-
혹시 시간 되신다면 잠시 쪽지좀 주실수 이쓸까요 (소수어과시면 더욱 좋아용)
-
주제 : 12시 10분까지 정답 안 나오면 댓글로 알려줌 난이도 : 매우쉬움 ~...
-
너무 행복하다 잠이 최고야
-
위크오프를 해버렷
-
올해 나올확률 어느정도라고 보시나요?
-
고전소설 친척 호칭 뇌절 총정리 ㅇㅇ 모르겠는거 있음 이거보셈 0
요즘 여기저기서 뇌절치길래 한번쯤은 정리하면 ㄱㅊ겠다싶어서함 말도 안되는건...
-
극찬하는 사람들이 있어서 다들 어떻게 느끼심 교육청 문항임요
-
표피낭종 제거 티눈 제거 진짜 쾌감 미침
선지들 촘촘하네요 ㄷㄷ