This document summarizes a study on questionable research practices in psychology. The study anonymously surveyed researchers about various practices and found significant rates of admission to behaviors like failing to report all dependent measures or conditions, stopping data collection early once a desired result was found, and selectively reporting studies that "worked." Respondents who admitted to these behaviors generally viewed them as defensible. The most admitted-to and defensible behaviors included failing to report all measures or conditions. The least admitted-to and viewed as indefensible behavior was falsifying data.
The document discusses the research process for a project comparing theories of evolution and intelligent design being taught in public school science classes. It outlines narrowing the topic from initially comparing evolution vs. creationism to focusing on intelligent design. Feedback from a professor suggested further defining and limiting the scope. The revised thesis statement argues that both evolution and intelligent design should be taught to allow critical analysis of evidence given flaws in the theory of evolution and assumptions required due to the pre-historical origins of life. The document reflects on lessons learned about remaining open-minded, using multiple sources, and adequately explaining research methods.
This document discusses several topics related to research ethics including guidelines, codes, and organizations. It provides 10 guidelines for ethical research including honesty, objectivity, integrity, and social responsibility. It summarizes the Nuremberg Code which consists of 10 principles for ethical human experimentation such as voluntary consent and avoiding unnecessary suffering. It also discusses the Belmont Report which established three ethical principles for research involving human subjects: beneficence, justice, and respect for persons. It provides an overview of the roles of WHO, UNESCO, and UNESCO in establishing standards and guidance for ethical research practices globally. It identifies several types of research misconduct and issues that can arise from collaboration, peer review, and conflicts of interest. It
Presentasjon fra Helene Ingierd i forbindelse med foredraget "Research ethics, scientific misconduct and questionable practices". Foredraget ble holdt online den 23. september 2020.
Here are some key rules of scholastic rigor:
- Methods and findings must be able to withstand peer review and scrutiny
- Claims require robust evidence and logic to support them
- Intellectual honesty and integrity are paramount
Scholastic rigor helps maintain high standards of quality, accuracy and ethics in academic work. It enhances academic freedom by requiring solid justification and reasoning.
Number FOUR Diversity of Thought
- The university welcomes diverse & conflicting viewpoints rather than enforcing orthodoxy
- Exposure to a variety of perspectives strengthens critical thinking & prevents intellectual stagnation
- An inclusive culture where all are free to question received wisdom & propose unconventional ideas
Number FIVE
Narrative research and Case study are among the 5 approaches to Qualitative research. The key characteristics with an example is icluded in the slides.
RMD 100Q Chapter14 cohen ak revised case studyAnil Kanjee
This document provides an overview of case study methodology. It defines a case study, discusses different types of case studies and designs. It covers key aspects of planning and conducting case studies such as data collection methods, recording observations, reliability/validity, generalization. An example case study on working class students transitioning out of school is also summarized to illustrate case study techniques.
The document discusses the causes of poverty and wealth inequality. It argues that the poverty of spirit of wealthy people ("BHRP") who accumulate over 90% of wealth but make up just 2% of the population is responsible for widespread poverty. The BHRP are blind to everything except material gains and ignore that true happiness comes from love, not wealth. Their selfish accumulation of wealth through unfair advantages over others will lead according to the general law of perverseness to catastrophe for humanity. Intelligent people must help expand the limited mental horizons of the BHRP and steer society towards a more balanced system based on wisdom, faith, and equitable labor.
The document discusses the research process for a project comparing theories of evolution and intelligent design being taught in public school science classes. It outlines narrowing the topic from initially comparing evolution vs. creationism to focusing on intelligent design. Feedback from a professor suggested further defining and limiting the scope. The revised thesis statement argues that both evolution and intelligent design should be taught to allow critical analysis of evidence given flaws in the theory of evolution and assumptions required due to the pre-historical origins of life. The document reflects on lessons learned about remaining open-minded, using multiple sources, and adequately explaining research methods.
This document discusses several topics related to research ethics including guidelines, codes, and organizations. It provides 10 guidelines for ethical research including honesty, objectivity, integrity, and social responsibility. It summarizes the Nuremberg Code which consists of 10 principles for ethical human experimentation such as voluntary consent and avoiding unnecessary suffering. It also discusses the Belmont Report which established three ethical principles for research involving human subjects: beneficence, justice, and respect for persons. It provides an overview of the roles of WHO, UNESCO, and UNESCO in establishing standards and guidance for ethical research practices globally. It identifies several types of research misconduct and issues that can arise from collaboration, peer review, and conflicts of interest. It
Presentasjon fra Helene Ingierd i forbindelse med foredraget "Research ethics, scientific misconduct and questionable practices". Foredraget ble holdt online den 23. september 2020.
Here are some key rules of scholastic rigor:
- Methods and findings must be able to withstand peer review and scrutiny
- Claims require robust evidence and logic to support them
- Intellectual honesty and integrity are paramount
Scholastic rigor helps maintain high standards of quality, accuracy and ethics in academic work. It enhances academic freedom by requiring solid justification and reasoning.
Number FOUR Diversity of Thought
- The university welcomes diverse & conflicting viewpoints rather than enforcing orthodoxy
- Exposure to a variety of perspectives strengthens critical thinking & prevents intellectual stagnation
- An inclusive culture where all are free to question received wisdom & propose unconventional ideas
Number FIVE
Narrative research and Case study are among the 5 approaches to Qualitative research. The key characteristics with an example is icluded in the slides.
RMD 100Q Chapter14 cohen ak revised case studyAnil Kanjee
This document provides an overview of case study methodology. It defines a case study, discusses different types of case studies and designs. It covers key aspects of planning and conducting case studies such as data collection methods, recording observations, reliability/validity, generalization. An example case study on working class students transitioning out of school is also summarized to illustrate case study techniques.
The document discusses the causes of poverty and wealth inequality. It argues that the poverty of spirit of wealthy people ("BHRP") who accumulate over 90% of wealth but make up just 2% of the population is responsible for widespread poverty. The BHRP are blind to everything except material gains and ignore that true happiness comes from love, not wealth. Their selfish accumulation of wealth through unfair advantages over others will lead according to the general law of perverseness to catastrophe for humanity. Intelligent people must help expand the limited mental horizons of the BHRP and steer society towards a more balanced system based on wisdom, faith, and equitable labor.
Lesson 2- Nature of Qualitative Research.pptxChristianFruto
This document discusses the nature of qualitative research. It begins by listing the objectives of understanding the characteristics, kinds, strengths, and weaknesses of qualitative research, as well as illustrating its importance across different fields. It then defines qualitative research as dealing with understanding human behavior in natural settings and focusing on individual perceptions. It provides characteristics of qualitative research such as being naturalistic, using multiple methods, and having an emergent design. Finally, it discusses different qualitative research designs like phenomenology, narrative inquiry, and case studies, and provides examples. It also notes the strengths and weaknesses of qualitative research.
CEPLAS Cologne June 2017: Research misconduct; science‘s self administered ...Leonid Schneider
Workshop presentation at International CEPLAS Summer School 2017 – „Emerging Frontiers in Plant Sciences“ June 5th – 9th, 2017 Sportschule Hennef, Germany
This document discusses research misconduct and issues of reproducibility. It defines research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. While science aims to be self-correcting, many published findings are not reproducible or trustworthy. Several factors make results less likely to be true, such as small studies, small effect sizes, and conflicts of interest. Efforts are underway to improve reproducibility through replicating studies, publishing negative results, and establishing standards for transparent and ethical research.
This is an updated version of an invited talk I presented at the European Research Council-Brussels (Scientific Seminar): "Love for Science or 'academic prostitution'".
It has been updated to be presented at the The Spanish and Portuguese Relativity Meetings (EREP) on 6th July 2019.
I have included new slides and revised others.
I present a personal revision (sometimes my own vision) of some issues that I consider key for doing Science. It was at the time focused on the expected audience, mainly Scientific Officers with background in different fields of science and scholarship, but also Agency staff.
Abstract: In a recent Special issue of Nature concerning Science Metrics it was claimed that " Research reverts to a kind of 'academic prostitution' in which work is done to please editors and referees rather than to further knowledge."If this is true, funding agencies should try to avoid falling into the trap of their own system. By perpetuating this 'prostitution' they risk not funding the best research but funding the best sold research.
Given the current epoch of economical crisis, where in a quest for funds researchers are forced into competitive game of pandering to panelists, its seems a good time for deep reflection about the entire scientific system.
With this talk I aim to provoke extra critical thinking among the committees who select evaluators, and among the evaluators, who in turn require critical thinking to the candidates when selecting excellent science.
I present some initiatives (e.g. new tracers of impact for the Web era- 'altmetrics'), and on-going projects (e.g. how to move from publishing advertising to publishing knowledge), that might enable us to favor Science over marketing.
The document discusses the scientific process, noting that inquiry is at the heart of science and based on observations which can be quantitative or qualitative. It describes discovery science which relies on observation and analysis to describe natural phenomena through inductive reasoning, and hypothesis-based science which develops hypotheses to test through experiments using deductive reasoning. The scientific process is presented as flexible rather than rigid, with hypotheses tested experimentally and possibly leading to broader scientific theories.
This lecture talks about the importance of evidence in scientific, business, and innovation research. It lists down important examples to carry this process in perspective of the problem statement.
By the end of this presentation you should be able to:
Describe what is qualitative research
Demonstrate the differences between Qualitative & Quantitative research
Understand the basic concepts of Qualitative studies:
Characteristics of qualitative research
Bias
Triangulation
Trustworthiness
A training session I gave to the Scientific Committee of Science Club, a science concerned team at the Engineering faculty| Alexandria University.
The training involved:
- The scientific research (What, Why, How)
- Common mistakes
- Writing a scientific post (experience based steps)
This document provides an overview of qualitative research methods including phenomenology, ethnography, historical research, and case studies. It defines each method and provides examples of topics that have been studied using each approach. Phenomenology seeks to understand lived experiences, ethnography studies social groups and cultures, historical research interprets past events, and case studies provide an in-depth analysis of a specific situation. The document also contrasts qualitative and quantitative research.
Talk 2 at Research Integrity workshop at Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, April 6th 2018
http://www.mpipz.mpg.de/events/13302/4358571
This document discusses qualitative research methods. It defines qualitative research as focusing on non-numerical observation and meaning-making to answer how and why questions. The document contrasts qualitative and quantitative methods, outlining different philosophical assumptions and characteristics of each approach. It then describes common steps in qualitative research, including purposive sampling and ongoing data collection and analysis. Finally, it discusses approaches like case studies, strengths and limitations of qualitative research, and the relationship between qualitative and quantitative methods.
This document discusses qualitative research methods. It defines qualitative research as focusing on non-numerical observation and meaning-making to answer how and why questions. The document contrasts qualitative and quantitative methods, outlining different philosophical assumptions and characteristics of each approach. It then describes common steps in qualitative research, including purposive sampling and ongoing data collection and analysis. Finally, it discusses approaches like case studies, strengths and limitations of qualitative research, and the relationship between qualitative and quantitative methods.
1) The document discusses key elements of study design that researchers must consider when developing a study to gather empirical evidence, or "ugly facts", to test hypotheses. This includes whether a study is experimental or observational, how variables are measured, and whether subjects or groups can be compared at baseline.
2) Different types of comparative studies are outlined, including randomized experiments, cohort studies, case-control studies, and ecological studies. Examples from epidemiology lab datasets demonstrate how variables and study designs differ.
3) All research contains some error, including random errors that do not bias results systematically, and systematic errors that can distort findings. Understanding sources and types of error is important for evaluating evidence.
The document discusses various types of research including applied research, basic research, correlational research, descriptive research, ethnographic research, experimental research, exploratory research, grounded theory research, historical research, phenomenological research, qualitative research, and quantitative research. It provides brief definitions and examples of each type of research along with discussions of their advantages and disadvantages.
Research misconduct in plant science: infectious and toxic (Cologne 6.4.2018)Leonid Schneider
Talk 1 at Research Integrity workshop at Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, April 6th 2018
http://www.mpipz.mpg.de/events/13302/4358571
1. The document discusses basic research methodology including definitions of research, categories of research such as empirical, theoretical, basic, and applied research.
2. It also covers scientific research steps, quantitative and qualitative data collection, and research design which involves formulating problems, setting objectives, designing studies, and interpreting results.
3. Key aspects of research methodology discussed include hypotheses formulation and testing, various study designs like experimental and observational, and determining appropriate sample sizes.
This document defines and describes various types of research including:
- Applied research which seeks to solve practical problems rather than acquire knowledge for its own sake.
- Basic research which expands knowledge without necessarily creating something, driven by scientific curiosity.
- Correlational research which investigates relationships between variables without determining cause and effect.
- Descriptive research which provides accurate portrayals of individuals, situations, or groups to discover new meanings or frequencies of occurrences.
- Experimental research which objectively and systematically investigates causes and effects through manipulation of variables and control groups.
- Qualitative research which investigates non-quantifiable phenomena like meanings and beliefs through in-depth understanding rather than statistical analysis.
The document discusses data analysis and negative results in research. It defines data analysis as breaking down data into manageable units to identify patterns and relationships. It also distinguishes between qualitative and quantitative data and research. Negative results, which challenge assumptions or are inconclusive, represent the majority of research but are often not published. Publishing negative results could help direct research away from failed approaches and prevent wasted efforts replicating failures.
The document discusses research ethics and characteristics of ethical research. It provides examples of ethical and unethical research practices, including fabricating data, failing to publish corrections, and issues around sharing research data with other scientists. Key aspects of ethical research include objectivity, protecting research subjects, transparency in findings, and acknowledging collaborators.
This document discusses what science is and is not. It begins by stating that science attempts to disprove ideas rather than prove them, and is concerned with understanding the natural world through observation and experimentation. It notes several misconceptions, such as the idea that science can prove anything or that there is a linear progression from hypothesis to theory to law. Good science minimizes bias through random sampling, appropriate measurement techniques, and independent verification. It emphasizes that science provides the most reliable knowledge about the natural world but does not claim certainty, only degrees of probability. Overall, the document provides a concise overview of the scientific process and addresses common misconceptions about the limitations and objectives of science.
Lesson 2- Nature of Qualitative Research.pptxChristianFruto
This document discusses the nature of qualitative research. It begins by listing the objectives of understanding the characteristics, kinds, strengths, and weaknesses of qualitative research, as well as illustrating its importance across different fields. It then defines qualitative research as dealing with understanding human behavior in natural settings and focusing on individual perceptions. It provides characteristics of qualitative research such as being naturalistic, using multiple methods, and having an emergent design. Finally, it discusses different qualitative research designs like phenomenology, narrative inquiry, and case studies, and provides examples. It also notes the strengths and weaknesses of qualitative research.
CEPLAS Cologne June 2017: Research misconduct; science‘s self administered ...Leonid Schneider
Workshop presentation at International CEPLAS Summer School 2017 – „Emerging Frontiers in Plant Sciences“ June 5th – 9th, 2017 Sportschule Hennef, Germany
This document discusses research misconduct and issues of reproducibility. It defines research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. While science aims to be self-correcting, many published findings are not reproducible or trustworthy. Several factors make results less likely to be true, such as small studies, small effect sizes, and conflicts of interest. Efforts are underway to improve reproducibility through replicating studies, publishing negative results, and establishing standards for transparent and ethical research.
This is an updated version of an invited talk I presented at the European Research Council-Brussels (Scientific Seminar): "Love for Science or 'academic prostitution'".
It has been updated to be presented at the The Spanish and Portuguese Relativity Meetings (EREP) on 6th July 2019.
I have included new slides and revised others.
I present a personal revision (sometimes my own vision) of some issues that I consider key for doing Science. It was at the time focused on the expected audience, mainly Scientific Officers with background in different fields of science and scholarship, but also Agency staff.
Abstract: In a recent Special issue of Nature concerning Science Metrics it was claimed that " Research reverts to a kind of 'academic prostitution' in which work is done to please editors and referees rather than to further knowledge."If this is true, funding agencies should try to avoid falling into the trap of their own system. By perpetuating this 'prostitution' they risk not funding the best research but funding the best sold research.
Given the current epoch of economical crisis, where in a quest for funds researchers are forced into competitive game of pandering to panelists, its seems a good time for deep reflection about the entire scientific system.
With this talk I aim to provoke extra critical thinking among the committees who select evaluators, and among the evaluators, who in turn require critical thinking to the candidates when selecting excellent science.
I present some initiatives (e.g. new tracers of impact for the Web era- 'altmetrics'), and on-going projects (e.g. how to move from publishing advertising to publishing knowledge), that might enable us to favor Science over marketing.
The document discusses the scientific process, noting that inquiry is at the heart of science and based on observations which can be quantitative or qualitative. It describes discovery science which relies on observation and analysis to describe natural phenomena through inductive reasoning, and hypothesis-based science which develops hypotheses to test through experiments using deductive reasoning. The scientific process is presented as flexible rather than rigid, with hypotheses tested experimentally and possibly leading to broader scientific theories.
This lecture talks about the importance of evidence in scientific, business, and innovation research. It lists down important examples to carry this process in perspective of the problem statement.
By the end of this presentation you should be able to:
Describe what is qualitative research
Demonstrate the differences between Qualitative & Quantitative research
Understand the basic concepts of Qualitative studies:
Characteristics of qualitative research
Bias
Triangulation
Trustworthiness
A training session I gave to the Scientific Committee of Science Club, a science concerned team at the Engineering faculty| Alexandria University.
The training involved:
- The scientific research (What, Why, How)
- Common mistakes
- Writing a scientific post (experience based steps)
This document provides an overview of qualitative research methods including phenomenology, ethnography, historical research, and case studies. It defines each method and provides examples of topics that have been studied using each approach. Phenomenology seeks to understand lived experiences, ethnography studies social groups and cultures, historical research interprets past events, and case studies provide an in-depth analysis of a specific situation. The document also contrasts qualitative and quantitative research.
Talk 2 at Research Integrity workshop at Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, April 6th 2018
http://www.mpipz.mpg.de/events/13302/4358571
This document discusses qualitative research methods. It defines qualitative research as focusing on non-numerical observation and meaning-making to answer how and why questions. The document contrasts qualitative and quantitative methods, outlining different philosophical assumptions and characteristics of each approach. It then describes common steps in qualitative research, including purposive sampling and ongoing data collection and analysis. Finally, it discusses approaches like case studies, strengths and limitations of qualitative research, and the relationship between qualitative and quantitative methods.
This document discusses qualitative research methods. It defines qualitative research as focusing on non-numerical observation and meaning-making to answer how and why questions. The document contrasts qualitative and quantitative methods, outlining different philosophical assumptions and characteristics of each approach. It then describes common steps in qualitative research, including purposive sampling and ongoing data collection and analysis. Finally, it discusses approaches like case studies, strengths and limitations of qualitative research, and the relationship between qualitative and quantitative methods.
1) The document discusses key elements of study design that researchers must consider when developing a study to gather empirical evidence, or "ugly facts", to test hypotheses. This includes whether a study is experimental or observational, how variables are measured, and whether subjects or groups can be compared at baseline.
2) Different types of comparative studies are outlined, including randomized experiments, cohort studies, case-control studies, and ecological studies. Examples from epidemiology lab datasets demonstrate how variables and study designs differ.
3) All research contains some error, including random errors that do not bias results systematically, and systematic errors that can distort findings. Understanding sources and types of error is important for evaluating evidence.
The document discusses various types of research including applied research, basic research, correlational research, descriptive research, ethnographic research, experimental research, exploratory research, grounded theory research, historical research, phenomenological research, qualitative research, and quantitative research. It provides brief definitions and examples of each type of research along with discussions of their advantages and disadvantages.
Research misconduct in plant science: infectious and toxic (Cologne 6.4.2018)Leonid Schneider
Talk 1 at Research Integrity workshop at Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, April 6th 2018
http://www.mpipz.mpg.de/events/13302/4358571
1. The document discusses basic research methodology including definitions of research, categories of research such as empirical, theoretical, basic, and applied research.
2. It also covers scientific research steps, quantitative and qualitative data collection, and research design which involves formulating problems, setting objectives, designing studies, and interpreting results.
3. Key aspects of research methodology discussed include hypotheses formulation and testing, various study designs like experimental and observational, and determining appropriate sample sizes.
This document defines and describes various types of research including:
- Applied research which seeks to solve practical problems rather than acquire knowledge for its own sake.
- Basic research which expands knowledge without necessarily creating something, driven by scientific curiosity.
- Correlational research which investigates relationships between variables without determining cause and effect.
- Descriptive research which provides accurate portrayals of individuals, situations, or groups to discover new meanings or frequencies of occurrences.
- Experimental research which objectively and systematically investigates causes and effects through manipulation of variables and control groups.
- Qualitative research which investigates non-quantifiable phenomena like meanings and beliefs through in-depth understanding rather than statistical analysis.
The document discusses data analysis and negative results in research. It defines data analysis as breaking down data into manageable units to identify patterns and relationships. It also distinguishes between qualitative and quantitative data and research. Negative results, which challenge assumptions or are inconclusive, represent the majority of research but are often not published. Publishing negative results could help direct research away from failed approaches and prevent wasted efforts replicating failures.
The document discusses research ethics and characteristics of ethical research. It provides examples of ethical and unethical research practices, including fabricating data, failing to publish corrections, and issues around sharing research data with other scientists. Key aspects of ethical research include objectivity, protecting research subjects, transparency in findings, and acknowledging collaborators.
This document discusses what science is and is not. It begins by stating that science attempts to disprove ideas rather than prove them, and is concerned with understanding the natural world through observation and experimentation. It notes several misconceptions, such as the idea that science can prove anything or that there is a linear progression from hypothesis to theory to law. Good science minimizes bias through random sampling, appropriate measurement techniques, and independent verification. It emphasizes that science provides the most reliable knowledge about the natural world but does not claim certainty, only degrees of probability. Overall, the document provides a concise overview of the scientific process and addresses common misconceptions about the limitations and objectives of science.
ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, and GDPR: Best Practices for Implementation and...PECB
Denis is a dynamic and results-driven Chief Information Officer (CIO) with a distinguished career spanning information systems analysis and technical project management. With a proven track record of spearheading the design and delivery of cutting-edge Information Management solutions, he has consistently elevated business operations, streamlined reporting functions, and maximized process efficiency.
Certified as an ISO/IEC 27001: Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) Lead Implementer, Data Protection Officer, and Cyber Risks Analyst, Denis brings a heightened focus on data security, privacy, and cyber resilience to every endeavor.
His expertise extends across a diverse spectrum of reporting, database, and web development applications, underpinned by an exceptional grasp of data storage and virtualization technologies. His proficiency in application testing, database administration, and data cleansing ensures seamless execution of complex projects.
What sets Denis apart is his comprehensive understanding of Business and Systems Analysis technologies, honed through involvement in all phases of the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC). From meticulous requirements gathering to precise analysis, innovative design, rigorous development, thorough testing, and successful implementation, he has consistently delivered exceptional results.
Throughout his career, he has taken on multifaceted roles, from leading technical project management teams to owning solutions that drive operational excellence. His conscientious and proactive approach is unwavering, whether he is working independently or collaboratively within a team. His ability to connect with colleagues on a personal level underscores his commitment to fostering a harmonious and productive workplace environment.
Date: May 29, 2024
Tags: Information Security, ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, Artificial Intelligence, GDPR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find out more about ISO training and certification services
Training: ISO/IEC 27001 Information Security Management System - EN | PECB
ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management System - EN | PECB
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - Training Courses - EN | PECB
Webinars: https://pecb.com/webinars
Article: https://pecb.com/article
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about PECB:
Website: https://pecb.com/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/pecb/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PECBInternational/
Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/PECBCERTIFICATION
বাংলাদেশের অর্থনৈতিক সমীক্ষা ২০২৪ [Bangladesh Economic Review 2024 Bangla.pdf] কম্পিউটার , ট্যাব ও স্মার্ট ফোন ভার্সন সহ সম্পূর্ণ বাংলা ই-বুক বা pdf বই " সুচিপত্র ...বুকমার্ক মেনু 🔖 ও হাইপার লিংক মেনু 📝👆 যুক্ত ..
আমাদের সবার জন্য খুব খুব গুরুত্বপূর্ণ একটি বই ..বিসিএস, ব্যাংক, ইউনিভার্সিটি ভর্তি ও যে কোন প্রতিযোগিতা মূলক পরীক্ষার জন্য এর খুব ইম্পরট্যান্ট একটি বিষয় ...তাছাড়া বাংলাদেশের সাম্প্রতিক যে কোন ডাটা বা তথ্য এই বইতে পাবেন ...
তাই একজন নাগরিক হিসাবে এই তথ্য গুলো আপনার জানা প্রয়োজন ...।
বিসিএস ও ব্যাংক এর লিখিত পরীক্ষা ...+এছাড়া মাধ্যমিক ও উচ্চমাধ্যমিকের স্টুডেন্টদের জন্য অনেক কাজে আসবে ...
This presentation was provided by Steph Pollock of The American Psychological Association’s Journals Program, and Damita Snow, of The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), for the initial session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session One: 'Setting Expectations: a DEIA Primer,' was held June 6, 2024.
A review of the growth of the Israel Genealogy Research Association Database Collection for the last 12 months. Our collection is now passed the 3 million mark and still growing. See which archives have contributed the most. See the different types of records we have, and which years have had records added. You can also see what we have for the future.
A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at postgraduate students and early career researchers with little or no experience in writing and publishing journal articles.
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty,
International FDP on Fundamentals of Research in Social Sciences
at Integral University, Lucknow, 06.06.2024
By Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
Assessment and Planning in Educational technology.pptxKavitha Krishnan
In an education system, it is understood that assessment is only for the students, but on the other hand, the Assessment of teachers is also an important aspect of the education system that ensures teachers are providing high-quality instruction to students. The assessment process can be used to provide feedback and support for professional development, to inform decisions about teacher retention or promotion, or to evaluate teacher effectiveness for accountability purposes.
हिंदी वर्णमाला पीपीटी, hindi alphabet PPT presentation, hindi varnamala PPT, Hindi Varnamala pdf, हिंदी स्वर, हिंदी व्यंजन, sikhiye hindi varnmala, dr. mulla adam ali, hindi language and literature, hindi alphabet with drawing, hindi alphabet pdf, hindi varnamala for childrens, hindi language, hindi varnamala practice for kids, https://www.drmullaadamali.com
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and InclusionTechSoup
Let’s explore the intersection of technology and equity in the final session of our DEI series. Discover how AI tools, like ChatGPT, can be used to support and enhance your nonprofit's DEI initiatives. Participants will gain insights into practical AI applications and get tips for leveraging technology to advance their DEI goals.
2. Diederik Stapel, Psychologist
• Research Professor, Consumer
Science
• Director, Tilburg Institute for
Behavioral Economics Research
(TIBER)
• Faculty dean
• Ph.D. Psychology, Cum Laude,
University of Amsterdam, The
Netherlands
• Winner ASPO Best Dissertation
Award, Dutch Association of
Social Psychologists)
• Winner Jos Jaspars Early Career
Award, European Association for
Experimental Social Psychology
• Fulbright scholar
• Over 100 publications
3. Diederik Stapel, Gigantic Fraud
• At least 30 articles and
several book chapters
based on fabricated data
• Forfeited Ph.D.
• 12 students with
dissertations under
investigation
• University of Tilburg will
press criminal charges for
fraud and forgery
• Investigation ongoing,
likely to take a year or
more
4. THE
UNIVERSITIES
THE PUBLIC THE STUDENTS
THE FIELD
COLLEAGUES
THE
JOURNALS
5. Did Stapel fake his
research? Did he and his
students really make all
those people fill out forms
for an apple? Did Stapel
really cross-tabulate the
data? …
THE FIELD
Who cares? The
experiments are
preposterous. You‟d have to
be a highly trained social
psychologist, or a journalist,
to think otherwise.
-Andrew Ferguson
“The Chump Effect”
The Weekly Standard
6. It is important for a PhD student or
research Master‟s student to gain
personal experience of the entire
research process, including the
collection and processing of the data,
and certainly so where their own
research is involved. A number of Mr
Stapel‟s PhD students therefore
never experienced this process for
THE STUDENTS themselves. …
It was precisely because of the
isolated approach that the young
researchers were unaware that this
was not a normal state of affairs in
social psychology research.
-The Levelt Committee
“Interim Report Regarding the Breach of
Scientific Integrity Committed by Prof. D.A.
Stapel”
7. Looking back, this is a
mega-sized failure. Not only
was the research not value-
free, the results were
completely fake!
…I regret very much that
COLLEAGUES this has happened and I will
do everything I can to
recover the trust in scientific
work in social psychology.
-Roos Vonk
“Bewildered: Research on
„Psychology of Meat‟ is based on
fraud”
8. “Report
finds
THE
UNIVERSITIES massive
fraud at
Dutch
universities”
-Headline, Nature
9. • Poor collaboration
• Isolation of researchers
within the university
• Critical failure of peer
reviewers
• Bias toward positive results
(“Verification Factory”)
WHY • Uncritical view of data by
reviewers and colleagues
• Data hoarding
• Lack of independent officer
to report suspected fraud
• Lack of joint responsibility
for training researchers
Levelt Committee Report
10. • Better “integrity” training for PhD
students
• Appoint “Confidential Counselor
for Academic Integrity”
• Draft rules for protecting whistle
blowers specific to scientific
matters
• Dual supervisors for PhD
HOW •
candidates
Doctoral boards must ascertain
that data was collected and
analyzed by the candidate
• Publications must specify where
and how data were collected
• Research data must be held on
file and made available on request
for at least five years
• Publications must disclose where
data are held and how to access
Levelt Committee Report
11. From the ASA Code of Conduct:
15. Authorship Credit
(a) Sociologists take responsibility and
credit, including authorship credit, only for
work they have actually performed or to
which they have contributed.
(b) Sociologists ensure that principal
authorship and other publication credits
AUTHORSHIP are based on the relative scientific or
professional contributions of the
individuals involved, regardless of their
status. In claiming or determining the
ordering of authorship, sociologists seek to
reflect accurately the contributions of main
participants in the research and writing
process.
(c) A student is usually listed as principal
author on any multiple authored
publication that substantially derives from
the student's dissertation or thesis.
12. Marc Hauser, Evolutionary Biologist
• Professor, Harvard
College
• Co-director, Mind, Brain,
and Behavior Program
• Director, Cognitive
Evolution Lab
• NSF Young Investigator
Award
• Science medal from the
College de France
• Guggenheim Fellow
• ~200 articles published,
as well as 6 books
13. Marc Hauser, Fraud?
• Found solely responsible for
8 counts of academic
misconduct
• After a year‟s leave of
absence, faculty voted
overwhelmingly to bar him
from teaching
• Resigned in August 2011
• Other studies were
replicated by Hauser and
co-authors
• Harvard has not specified
the nature of his misconduct
• Internal documents suggest
that he falsified and
fabricated data
14. Leslie K. John, George
Loewenstein, and Drazen Prelec.
(forthcoming)
“Measuring the
Prevalence of
Questionable Research
Practices with Incentives
for Truth-telling”
Psychological Science
15. Admission rates and defensibility ratings, by item.
Note: Defensibility ratings were provided by respondents who admitted to having engaged in the given behavior.
Item Control (%) Bayesian Truth Odds Ratio Two-tailed p Mean defensibility
Serum (%) (Likelihood ratio) (SD)
0=Indefensible
1=Possibly defensible
2=Defensible
In a paper, failing to
report all of a study's
dependent
measures.
Deciding whether to
collect more data
after looking to see
whether the results
were significant.
In a paper, failing to
report all of a study's
conditions.
Stopping collecting
data earlier than
planned because
one found the result
that one had been
looking for.*
In a paper,
'Rounding off' a p
value (e.g. reporting
that a p value of .054
is less than .05)
In a paper,
selectively reporting
studies that 'worked.'
*Difference between experimental conditions significant at alpha ≤ 0.005
16. Admission rates and defensibility ratings, by item.
Note: Defensibility ratings were provided by respondents who admitted to having engaged in the given behavior.
Item Control (%) Bayesian Truth Odds Ratio Two-tailed p Mean defensibility
Serum (%) (Likelihood ratio) (SD)
0=Indefensible
1=Possibly defensible
2=Defensible
Deciding whether to
exclude data after
looking at the impact
of doing so on the
results.
In a paper, reporting
an unexpected
finding as having
been predicted from
the start.*
In a paper, claiming
that results are
unaffected by
demographic
variables (e.g.
gender) when one is
actually unsure (or
knows that they do).
Falsifying data.
*Difference between experimental conditions significant at alpha ≤ 0.005
17. Admission rates and defensibility ratings, by item.
Items are listed in decreasing order of judged defensibility.
Note: Defensibility ratings were provided by respondents who admitted to having engaged in the given behavior.
Item Control (%) Bayesian Truth Odds Ratio Two-tailed p Mean defensibility
Serum (%) (Likelihood ratio) (SD)
0=Indefensible
1=Possibly defensible
2=Defensible
In a paper, failing to
report all of a study's
63.4 66.5 1.14 0.23 1.84 (.39)
dependent
measures.
Deciding whether to
collect more data
after looking to see 55.9 58.0 1.08 0.46 1.79 (.44)
whether the results
were significant.
In a paper, failing to
report all of a study's 27.7 27.4 0.98 0.90 1.77 (.49)
conditions.
Stopping collecting
data earlier than
planned because
15.6 22.5 1.57 0.00 1.76 (.48)
one found the result
that one had been
looking for.*
In a paper,
'Rounding off' a p
value (e.g. reporting 22.0 23.3 1.07 0.58 1.68 (.57)
that a p value of .054
is less than .05)
In a paper,
selectively reporting 45.8 50.0 1.18 0.13 1.66 (.53)
studies that 'worked.'
*Difference between experimental conditions significant at alpha ≤ 0.005
18. Admission rates and defensibility ratings, by item.
Items are listed in decreasing order of judged defensibility.
Note: Defensibility ratings were provided by respondents who admitted to having engaged in the given behavior.
Item Control (%) Bayesian Truth Odds Ratio Two-tailed p Mean defensibility
Serum (%) (Likelihood ratio) (SD)
0=Indefensible
1=Possibly defensible
2=Defensible
Deciding whether to
exclude data after
looking at the impact 38.2 43.4 1.23 0.06 1.61 (.59)
of doing so on the
results.
In a paper, reporting
an unexpected
finding as having 27.0 35.0 1.45 0.00 1.5 (.60)
been predicted from
the start.*
In a paper, claiming
that results are
unaffected by
demographic
3.0 4.5 1.52 0.16 1.32 (.60)
variables (e.g.
gender) when one is
actually unsure (or
knows that they do).
Falsifying data.
0.6 1.7 2.75 0.07 0.16 (.37)
*Difference between experimental conditions significant at alpha ≤ 0.005