Nestes tempos da Era da Ebulição em que os carris de ferro em Inglaterra derretem com o calor do sol, primeiro encontrei este artigo, "In some scientific papers, words expressing uncertainty have decreased":
"Careful scientists know to acknowledge uncertainty in the findings and conclusions of their papers. But in one leading journal, the frequency of hedging words such as "might" and "probably" has fallen by about 40% over the past 2 decades, a study finds.If this trend holds across the scientific literature, it suggests a worrisome rise of unreliable, exaggerated claims, some observers say. Hedging and avoiding overconfidence “are vital to communicating what one’s data can actually say and what it merely implies,” says Melissa Wheeler, a social psychologist at the Swinburne University of Technology who was not involved in the study. "If academic writing becomes more about the rhetoric ... it will become more difficult for readers to decipher what is groundbreaking and truly novel.""
Ontem, encontrei este outro, "Open science advocates warn of widespread academic fraud":
"A decade since Brian Nosek launched an initiative to tackle academic fraud, efforts to impose greater accountability in research have in the past few weeks claimed two of their most high-profile scalps.
Marc Tessier-Lavigne, a distinguished neuroscientist and president of Stanford, resigned and pledged to retract a series of papers in prestigious journals after an independent inquiry concluded they used manipulated data. Harvard has similarly demanded retractions of papers co-written by Professor Francesca Gino, a leading dishonesty expert in its business school who is currently on administrative leave."
Depois, uma breve pesquisa no Twitter levou-me a esta thread onde também encontrei o nome de Dan Ariely.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário