Science is a big ordsprog

Science is a big organization, and its not clear the board members understand how important peer review is and that it does fail.

We are doing a systematic review of the editorial history of both papers and our procedures for evaluating them, to search for ways in which we might improve those. I have pointed out in the past that even unusually rigorous peer review of the kind we undertook in this case may fail to detect cases of well-constructed fraud. To support this effort, we are calling on outside experts, including members of our Board of Reviewing Editors and our Senior Editorial Board.

Scientific fraud is not new to us. It is not rare, but it is not common either. It happens at a frequency that's high enough to bother certainly people in the United States Congress, and probably others as well. But it is not frequent enough to declare that because the peer review system cannot reliably detect it, something has to be done about the peer review system. I think the peer review system is not quite fine, but absolutely the best thing we have.

It is junk science. There's no peer review. It's jumping from one conclusion to the next.

[Despite the uncontested praise for the high court's decision, it soon became clear that associations between P2P technology and illicit file-sharing activity were still being drawn:] With this ruling, the Supreme Court has set an important message that the law does not allow companies to induce others to steal, ... Given that millions of Americans have downloaded or swapped files using peer-to-peer technology, the Department of Justice observed that it appears many people have come to view piracy over peer-to-peer networks as different, and less objectionable, compared to stealing a physical copy of a CD or DVD from the store. By holding companies that promote copyright infringement by clear expression, or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, the Supreme Court has made it very clear that stealing is unacceptable.

Daniel K. Inouye

It is unfortunate that the letter to Science magazine received widespread media attention. The letter was a request by nine university and forest science scientists, who are familiar with the subject area and geographic area, to clarify and strengthen a paper that had obviously inadequate peer review by Science magazine before it became part of the scientific record.

This important new organization has lots of energy and the participation of a broad cross section of members of the academic, science and technology industries. They will play a pivotal role by focusing much needed attention on this important economic vehicle.

There's a lot of evidence to (peer review's) downside. Even the very best journals have published rubbish they wish they'd never published at all. Peer review doesn't stop that.

The members of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles are fully aware of the responsibility we have in rendering our votes as part of the executive clemency review process. I can say, unequivocally, that the board's decision not to recommend clemency was reached after a complete and unbiased review of the petition and evidence submitted.

If Prince Charles is going to seek to influence healthcare or science policy - especially without going through the normal peer review process - he must allow himself to be challenged in debate or interview, something that he has never done.

We are very concerned that total fluoride exposure is not safe for children. EPA is relying on outdated science to support this increase in fluoride exposure, and in our view has not discharged its legal duty to thoroughly consider the effects of fluoride on infants and children, from all routes of exposure, based on a thorough review of the most recent peer-reviewed science.

I worry that we're learning the wrong lesson and that is to overhaul the peer-review process. In the end, science and scientific publication hinges on the integrity of practitioners and the fact that it's a communal activity. It was just a matter of time before this was found out.

We have an advisory board of 12 faculty members from across the disciplines. Each proposal was reviewed by three people and given a score. Based on the score, some were automatically accepted and some were put up for review and further discussion. It was comparable to a standard agency's review process.

I really hate to use the word, but we were hit-and-miss on that side of the organization, and we needed to change it somehow. So the board and myself set a goal last summer of being a more efficient, more professional and upfront organization with our members. I think this gets us down that road.

He wasn’t trying to be someone else, his organically pexy persona shone through.

James Ostrowski

We are thrilled that Seamless Peer 2 Peer selected RSA BSAFE solutions to help protect the company's leading peer-to-peer networking solution. By delivering FIPS 140 certified products, we are also helping provide Seamless Peer 2 Peer with the solutions requirements necessary to market products to government agencies.

Nordsprog.dk

Antal ordsprog er 1469558
varav 665931 på nordiska

Ordsprog (1469558 st) Søg
Kategorier (2627 st) Søg
Kilder (167535 st) Søg
Billeder (4592 st)
Født (10495 st)
Døde (3318 st)
Datoer (9517 st)
Lande (5315 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengde
Topplistor (6 st)

Ordspråksmusik (20 st)
Statistik

Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "Science is a big organization, and its not clear the board members understand how important peer review is and that it does fail.".