Maintaining Scientific Primacy
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Maintaining correctness in scientific programs
their lifetimes, not just when they're young. For most scientific programs, the rate of change doesn't decrease significantly even after many years. Like sharks, scientific programs that aren't moving are dead. This high rate of change is bad enough, but the problems are further exacerbated by the increased importance of cor-rectness to the scientific programmer. Most programmers can reasonably...
متن کاملMaintaining the integrity of the scientific record.
We editors of medical journals worry that we sometimes publish studies where the declared authors have not participated in the design of the study, had no access to the raw data, and had little to do with the interpretation of the data. Instead the sponsors of the study—often pharmaceutical companies—have designed the study and analysed and interpreted the data. Readers and editors are thus bei...
متن کاملMaintaining primacy of the patient perspective in the development of patient-centered patient reported outcomes
The objectives of this study were to describe and demonstrate a new model of developing patient reported outcomes (PROs) that are patient-centered, and to test the hypothesis that following this model would result in a qualitatively different PRO than if the typical PRO development model were followed. The typical process of developing PROs begins with an initial list of signs or symptoms origi...
متن کاملAffective Primacy vs. Cognitive Primacy: Dissolving the Debate
When people see a snake, they are likely to activate both affective information (e.g., dangerous) and non-affective information about its ontological category (e.g., animal). According to the Affective Primacy Hypothesis, the affective information has priority, and its activation can precede identification of the ontological category of a stimulus. Alternatively, according to the Cognitive Prim...
متن کاملTen Simple Rules for Building and Maintaining a Scientific Reputation
At a recent Public Library of Science (PLoS) journal editors’ meeting, we were having a discussion about the work of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE; http://www.publicationethics.org/), a forum for editors to discuss research and publication misconduct. Part of the discussion centered on the impact such cases have on the scientific reputation of those involved. We began musing: What o...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Science
سال: 1983
ISSN: 0036-8075,1095-9203
DOI: 10.1126/science.220.4597.559