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.
-
생각해보니까 공부하면서 는다고 한적 단 한번도 없는거 같은데 실제로 대학은 세급간...
-
와 덥다 3
날씨가 이게 맞나?
-
흠냐뇨이..
-
이번 고2 9평 4
국어 낮2 수학 1 영어 4 탐구 1 1 인데 고3때 올릴 수 있을까 자퇴생이라...
-
ㅈㄱㄴ
-
이거 다 외워야 하나요??
-
순한줄 알았지? 맛 서바
-
순한맛 서바
-
교재 왔따 3
-
사회문화 질문 3
노동조합은 평소 공식조직으로 들어가는걸로 아는데 문제 발문에 사내 노동조합이라고...
-
인논으로 대학 합격하신 분 계시나요… 경쟁률 보고 진짜 도저히 희망이 없는 것 같고...
-
밥이나 먹어야지 2
아침점심을 안 먹었군
-
늦나요?
-
아무리 아껴봐도 1년 알바한거랑 약사 한달수입 비슷하다는거 ->절약보다 내...
-
한번에 처음부터 끝까지 여러번 보는게 낫다고 생각하세요, 아니면 도표 전 개념+복습...
-
잘못된 건 알고 있어도 정치적으로 관심이 덜한 분야고 한약사들이 약사 고용해서...
-
자기가 잘본 실모=평가원스럽고 퀄좋음 자기가 못본 실모=사설틱하고 퀄구리고 난잡함
-
쪽지주세요 2
감사합니다~
-
같이 놀러다니는거나 꽃받는거는 별생각없이보는데 좀뭐랄까 지 질질 짜는거 올리는...
선지들 촘촘하네요 ㄷㄷ