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.
-
알려주시면 감사하겠습니다
-
구합니다!
-
왜 이러지 바뀐건 하나도없는데
-
어디까지내려가는거에여
-
대학 어디가로 충북대 내신 산출해본건데 혹시 여기서 어떤것 보면서 전년도 입결과...
-
불교 파트에 천태종 화엄종 정토종 정확하게 구별하는 문제랑, 한국 무속 신앙(고조선...
-
갤러리 뒤지다가 21년 수능 성적표를 보게 되었는데 당시에는 너무 못 봐서 모의지원...
-
신혁이가 좋다 3
좋아
-
기출 따로 안 봐도 될까요? 6평 풀어봤는데 77 나와서 어제부터 수학...
-
10만원어치 일본가서산 굿즈 치킨..아니 아메리카노...아니 컵라면..
-
재수생 중에 수능 접수 놓쳐서 수능 못본 사람 있으려나 5
갑자기 불안해지네 접수 잘할수 있겠지? ㅋㅋ
-
ㅇㅇ 반박시 고자
-
신경쓰지 않는다!!!!! 상관없다!!!!!!! 일단 지금으로서는 공부하면 되겠지
-
여기서 ㄱ번은 T + 알파(알파>0) 맞죠? 앞선 시각이라는게 원래 시각보다...
-
문학 특 5
행복한 사람은 문학을 쓰지 않는다 별것 아닌 것 같지만 문제 푸는 데 엄청 도움됨...
-
설맞이 ->드릴 34 vs 드릴 34 ->설맞이 지금 드릴5 풀고있긴 함니다
-
제3판교로 이전할 첨단 분야 대학 설명회에 12개 대학 참여 1
제3 판교 테크노밸리에 유치할 첨단학과 대학 설명회에 12개 대학이 참여해 관심을...
-
이감온 원래 구독하고 있어서 한달에 한번 오는데 저번주부터 국어 현강 다녀서 이감...
-
존재하긴 함? 진짜 두문제 남겨놓고 27분 가고 이러는데?
선지들 촘촘하네요 ㄷㄷ