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.
-
ㅈㄱㄴ
-
기하 물1 지1 중에서 추천 ㄱㄱ혓
-
학교에서 소논문 형식으로 실험 하고 보고서 작성후 발표하는 프로젝트를 시행하는데...
-
토달지말고 공감만 해줘 ㅠㅠ 나 오늘 이런일 당했쏘 ㅠㅠ 한남들 진짜 미쳐...
-
쌤 출장가서 전화로 말하고 나가려다가 안 받으셔서 그냥 나왓거든여 괜찮을까여
-
수학공부 ㅇㅈ 1
-
으악 크아악
-
강X2회 2
왜케 어렵냐 이거 수능이면 등급컷 얼마 예상됨?
-
학교 어케 뺄수없나 애들 존나시끄럽고 수업하면서 지문읽게시킴; 7교시 출튀해도...
-
ㅈㄱㄴ
-
52254 문과 이제 공부 시작한 거면 어디까지 ㄱㄴ? 4
사실 의대생이었고 동대 와이즈캠 외글캠 세려대로 뱃지냠냠 ㅆㄱㄴ? 불꽃가능ㅋㅋ
-
(진)
-
현 고2고 경기권 일반고 다니며 내신은 1점대 나오는데 생기부가 빈약해서...
-
닉을 네프린으로 바꿔보고싶네요
-
기분 좋네
-
강대x vs 해모
-
owl 2025껄 풀까요 크포를 사는게 나을까요 문제량으로 좀 늘리고 싶은데..
-
공부 하기싫어 미칠거같에;;;;;
-
내가 이상한건가 3
남들 노는거 인스타에 떠도 아무렇지도 않음.. 아 그냥 담년도에 좋은 대학가서...
선지들 촘촘하네요 ㄷㄷ