Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1371/journal.pbio.1002460 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002460 C4865149!4865149!27171138     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       PLoS+Biol 2016 ; 14 (5): ä Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=27171138|t=2016. Scientists? Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right |pdf=|usr=}}{{27171138}} gab.com Text Scientists Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right JO: PLoS Biol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27171138 #FOAvip Replication is vital for increasing precision and accuracy of scientific claims. However, when replications ?succeed? or ?fail,? they could have reputational consequences for the claim?s originators. Surveys of United States adults (N = 4,786), undergraduates (N = 428), and researchers (N = 313) showed that reputational assessments of scientists were based more on how they pursue knowledge and respond to replication evidence, not whether the initial results were true. When comparing one scientist that produced boring but certain results with another that produced exciting but uncertain results, opinion favored the former despite researchers? belief in more rewards for the latter. Considering idealized views of scientific practices offers an opportunity to address incentives to reward both innovation and verification. Twit Text FOAVip Scientists Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right ????PLoS Biol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27171138 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27171138 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|27171138}}</ref> Scientists? Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right #MMPMID27171138 Ebersole CR; Axt JR; Nosek BA PLoS Biol 2016[May]; 14 (5): ä PMID27171138show ga Replication is vital for increasing precision and accuracy of scientific claims. However, when replications ?succeed? or ?fail,? they could have reputational consequences for the claim?s originators. Surveys of United States adults (N = 4,786), undergraduates (N = 428), and researchers (N = 313) showed that reputational assessments of scientists were based more on how they pursue knowledge and respond to replication evidence, not whether the initial results were true. When comparing one scientist that produced boring but certain results with another that produced exciting but uncertain results, opinion favored the former despite researchers? belief in more rewards for the latter. Considering idealized views of scientific practices offers an opportunity to address incentives to reward both innovation and verification. äScientists? Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing