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.
-
풀 N제도 없고 수특 수완도 다 풀어서 없는데 그냥 복습 + 실모 돌릴까요? ?
-
꼴이좋아 2
오늘
-
수하 다떼고 중간고사 끝나면 수1 찍먹 가볼려고 하는데 메가랑 ebs중에서 누가...
-
화학 뒤늦게 폼 올라서 풀게 넘 많아서여
-
또다시 DRX하진 않겠지
-
저여붕이임 1
-
아무리 아껴봐도 1년 알바한거랑 약사 한달수입 비슷하다는거 ->절약보다 내...
-
???:세상에 자기가 03년생 삼수생인데 경북대 사범대를 가겠단 사람이 있대!
-
그냥해봤어요
-
잘못된 건 알고 있어도 정치적으로 관심이 덜한 분야고 한약사들이 약사 고용해서...
-
드5는 풀었고 문해전 미적 s2끝내고 풀까싶은데 별론가
-
워먀워매 쪽잠 조질까..
-
좋나요? 풀어본 분 후기좀
-
이거 왤케 어렵나요 1회만 47이고 2회 35 3회 36인데 3회 풀다가 헛웃음 나옴요…
-
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!
선지들 촘촘하네요 ㄷㄷ