문제 퀄 평가좀
게시글 주소: https://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.
-
드5는 풀었고 문해전 미적 s2끝내고 풀까싶은데 별론가
-
워먀워매 쪽잠 조질까..
-
좋나요? 풀어본 분 후기좀
-
조국사태의 핵심 3
이게 맞는듯 조국사태 때려잡고 바뀐게 없음 오히려 정시가 줆
-
이거 왤케 어렵나요 1회만 47이고 2회 35 3회 36인데 3회 풀다가 헛웃음 나옴요…
-
요즘 근황 3
롯데경기 보다가 아! 와카라도 갈 수 있을까? 라는 말같지도않은 꼴레발을 이어가다...
-
작품분석집 말고 강E분 독서처럼 연계기출과 자체 제작 문제가 실려있는 EBS 문학...
-
너무 많으면 어떤식으로 처리하는게 나을까요 다 실전처럼 하는게 맞을지.. 사설...
-
솔직히 이번에 과탐으로 공대 간 수험생들 좀 허탈할 듯
-
가을은 뒤졌다 1
이게 가을이니 대프리카야
-
표시된 함수들이 왜 점대칭인지 이해가 안됩니다!
-
수학 잘하는 법 2
높은 3등급이 목표입니다..
-
안녕하세요, 작년부터 현자의 돌 컨텐츠를 애용하다가 이번에 새롭게 6평 분석서가...
-
ptsd
-
K - 다양성 L - 익명성 어쩌고저쩌고 지문 맞혔지만 시간 굉장히 날려먹음
-
가슴이 웅장해짐.. 맛나게 풀어주마!
-
70점도 안나오게 생김;;; 개어렵네 ㅜㅜ
-
하...
-
이진수 계산 오바라는 말이 많던데 솔직히 지문 읽고 충분히 유추해볼만 하지 않았나...
-
눈앞에 펼쳐진 여섯갈래길
선지들 촘촘하네요 ㄷㄷ