题目内容
[听力原文]M: I first read Ulysses when I was eighteen, but I didn’t understand much of it.W: No wonder. It is one of the most complex novels in the English language.O: Why isn’t the woman surprised at the man’s statement（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Which factor does first aid not usually include（）
What might block the process of a taking-one-year-off plan according to the passage（）
1. 目前食品浪费现状令人担忧； 2. “舌尖上的浪费”现象出现的原因； 3. 如何解决这个问题。
There is, writes Daniele Fanelli in a recent issue of Nature, something rotten in the state of scientific research—an epidemic of false, biased, and falsified findings where "only the most egregious cases of misconduct are discovered and punished." Fanelli is a leading thinker in an increasingly alarming field of scientific research: one that seeks to find out why it is that so many scientific researches turn out to be wrong.For a long time the focus has either been on industry funding as a source of bias, particularly in drug research, or on those who deliberately commit fraud, such as the spectacular case of Diederik Stapel, a Dutch social psychologist who was found to have fabricated at least 55 research papers over 20 years. But an increasing number of studies have shown that flawed research is a much wider phenomenon, especially in the biomedical sciences. Indeed, the investigation into Stapel also blamed a "sloppy" research culture that often ignored inconvenient data and misunderstood important statistical methods."There’s little question that the scientific literature is awash (充斥着)in false findings—findings that if you try to replicate you’ll probably never succeed or at least find them to be different from what was initially said," says Fanelli. "But people don’t appreciate that this is not because scientists are manipulating these results, consciously or unconsciously; it’s largely because we have a system that favors statistical flukes (侥幸) instead of replicable findings. "This is why, he says, we need to extend the idea of academic misconduct (currently limited to fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism) to "distorted reporting"--the failure to communicate all the information someone would need to validate your findings. Right now, he says, we’re missing all the "unconscious biases, the systemic biases, the practices, mistakes, and problems that hardly ever count as cheating", even though they have a very important—and probably the largest—effect on creating technically false results in the literature.One particularly challenging bias is that academic journals tend to publish only positive results. As Isabelle Boutron, a professor of epidemiology at Rene Descartes University in Paris, points out, studies have shown that peer reviewers are influenced by trial results; one study showed that they not only favored a paper showing a positive effect over a near-identical paper showing no effect, they also gave the positive paper higher scores for its scientific methods. And Boutron has herself found extensive evidence of scientists spinning their findings to claim benefits that their actual results didn’t quite support."We need a major cultural change," says Fanelli. "But when you think that, even 20 years ago, these issues were practically never discussed, I think we’re making considerable progress.\ What does the word "egregious" in Line 2, Paragraph 1 mean（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付