Sentences with phrase «reviewed by other scientists»

Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PhD's.

And in any case, the paper was critically peer - reviewed by other scientists before publication anyway.

... research papers have been peer - reviewed by other scientists to make sure the findings are accurate.

«However, they need to be reviewed by other scientists to evaluate correctly their originality and importance.»

The paper is supposed to have been reviewed by other scientists before it was allowed for publication.

For now, Freund admits, the team's model is preliminary: The paper has been submitted to a journal and is now being reviewed by other scientists.

It means review by other scientists, whose interest is in truth, facts, and knowledge, and they gain stature in their own reputation by pointing out weaknesses in the arguments and data presented in the original work.

Not exact matches

The peer - reviewed paper — titled «Safely Interruptible Agents [PDF]» and published on the website of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI)-- was written by Laurent Orseau, a research scientist at Google DeepMind, Stuart Armstrong at Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute, and several others.

If new evidence is produced that indicates something else, scientist will consider it, publish articles about it that will be reviewed and critiqued by others, revise their opinions and create a new theory.

Committee members are jointly appointed by the AAAS Board and Council, and among the Committee's duties is to «formulate and recommend principles and procedures to guide the Association in a continuing review of issues that affect scientific freedom and scientific responsibility, and to search for means that will effectively bring these issues to the attention of both scientists and others.»

But while Judge Pham agreed that the technique had been subject to testing and peer review, it flunked on the other two points suggested by the Supreme Court to weigh cases like this one: the test of proven accuracy and general acceptance by scientists.

A new review by an international team of scientists, including Stony Brook University Professor Liliana M. Dávalos, reports an analysis of the incredibly diverse «lost world» of Caribbean fossils that includes giant rodents, vampire bats, enigmatic monkeys, ground sloths, shrews and dozens of other ancient mammals.

Scientists also help journals by reviewing and judging the quality of each others work, a process called «peer review,» without pay.

Harris cited other examples of concern — a review of 100 studies in the field of psychology in which the findings in only about a third of the studies were reproducible; an effort by scientists at Bayer, another large drug company, that managed to reproduce the findings of only one - quarter of the studies under review; a just - published review of 25 historical candidate genes for schizophrenia which found no evidence that the candidate genes are more associated with the disease than other genes.

While the new work has not yet been formally reviewed by a journal — Redfield says it has been submitted to Science — other scientists have regularly commented and offered advice on her blog posts.

KNAW and other organizations praised its proposals to prioritize the country's scientific goals in a «National Research Agenda» to be produced next year, to reduce the pressure on scientists by putting quality over quantity in peer review and to boost large - scale research infrastructure.

«The Working Group considered that information in the review article and its supplement was insufficient for independent evaluation of the individual studies and the conclusions reached by the Monsanto scientist and other author,» he added.

A government - commissioned independent review by a panel of scientists known as JASON estimated that the plutonium primaries in the current warheads will last a minimum of a century in storage, however, and, therefore, recommended that no action be taken other than routine maintenance, such as replacing surrounding circuitry and parts as they age — a core function of the Lifetime Extension Program the W76s are currently undergoing.

These are the erroneous predictions ascribed to the most recent report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-- a document reviewed by some 2,500 scientists and other experts as well as vetted by more than 190 countries.

The study is one of two NIH - funded projects — the other strips previous applications of all identifying characteristics before subjecting them to a new round of reviews — now underway that were spawned by a 2011 finding that black scientists have a much lower chance of receiving an NIH grant than their white counterparts.

Despite what Joe Bast and Heartland comms director Jim Lakely claim, their false report is not peer - reviewed, a formal process conducted by editors at actual scientific journals have other qualified scientists rigorously review and critique submitted work if it is to be approved for publication.

Applications will be reviewed online by virtual panels of disciplinary and interdisciplinary scientists and engineers and other professional graduate education experts.

And I might add that the interesting thing about Dr. Campbell's work is that it HAS NOT been peer reviewed, and it lies in contention with several other studies done by equally esteemed and credentialed scientists, whose work actually HAS been peer reviewed.

Our products have been reviewed for safety by our scientists when used as intended as a cat litter and have not been evaluated for other pet uses.

Science will be discussed by the public, and many will want to know other scientists» views on particular topics; to say they must be at a level to understand the peer - reviewed literature to do so is elitist.

It would be a far better use of most scientists and PhDs time who comment on this forum and on others like Open Mind to just STOP wasting YOUR time arguing with idiotic «drunken» deniers, and spend their time much more effectively by scouring the internet for such «events» as «Gas Fracking reviews by Government» etc etc in all nations across the world and use your education and skills and knowledge and actually make a positive difference to AGW / CC action by sending them a FORMAL SUBMISSION or offering up YOUR OPINION and EXPERTISE to be considered in their deliberations.

Have you subjected your finding to the unsparing scrutiny of other climate scientists, by submitting it for publication in appropriate peer - reviewed journals, or debating it at, say, the annual AGU meeting or other formal venues?

[Response: Published primarily in peer - reviewed journals, extensively cross-checked by other scientists, primarily funded by peer - reviewed research grants, etc. etc..

Peer review is the mechanism by which observations and descriptions are judged by other scientists with expertise in the same field.

I don't know about all of you, but I do find that the uncertainty around e.g. the various issues related to ocean heat content or issues regarding connecting the Argo float network to other data networks is SO much better covered in Judith's bizarre and uniquely repetitive mischaracterizations of other scientists» comments, than by the published science and its critical review.

So how does Jacobson respond to having his article critiqued by other scientists in the peer - reviewed scientific literature?

Like the other two reviews mentioned in your e-mail, the investigation chaired by Sir Muir Russell found no evidence of scientific malpractice by CRU scientists.

«The Smithsonian stands by the process by which the research results of all of its scholars are peer reviewed and vetted by other scientists,» Pulliam said.

That's kind of unavoidable, because in any field there aren't that many «experts» to whom to send papers, so they will often be reviewed by a small cadre of scientists who know each other.

They conferred awards and recognition on each other, excluded skeptical scientists from «peer reviews» of one another's papers, and conspired to blackball editors who permitted the publication of professional papers by Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and other climate experts whose work challenged the Mann - made global warming disaster thesis.

With Spencer and Lindzen debunked by a peer - reviewed publication, it's only fitting that the other prominent «skeptic» climate scientist, John Christy, would join the party.

For the Stern Review itself, the journal accepted my suggestion that it should publish two critical review articles, separate but linked, one contributed by our team of economists and the other by a corresponding group of scienReview itself, the journal accepted my suggestion that it should publish two critical review articles, separate but linked, one contributed by our team of economists and the other by a corresponding group of scienreview articles, separate but linked, one contributed by our team of economists and the other by a corresponding group of scientists.

Despite what Joe Bast and Heartland comms director Jim Lakely claim, their false report is not peer - reviewed, a formal process conducted by editors at actual scientific journals have other qualified scientists rigorously review and critique submitted work if it is to be approved for publication.

If there were 2,225 peer reviewed papers published by 9,136 contributing scientists from 2012 to 2013, and only one of them rejected the position that there is no such thing as intelligent life on other planets (ILOOP), therefore, 99.999 % of these scientific papers «reject ILOOP».

Most scientists are basically honest, but the people identified in Wegman's climate science clique are either slackers who don't bother to critically review the work of others in their clique, or their negligence is deliberate, because when their own paper is reviewed by the same small clique they want the same peer approval that generally results in increased funding requests.

The two games are played differently, but in English we might make the same point by saying something like this group of scientists are reviewing each other's papers in a sort of round robin game of pat - a-cake.

In this particular area of climate change, many of the assertions made by respectable scientists in peer reviewed literature are not backed up by archived data, code and other materials, and long legal battles have been fought to get those essential pieces of information put out for scrutiny.

Any data that is collected as part of a scientific study is always kept as part of the «peer review» process so that it can be studied by other scientists.

The 2,000 page IPCC report, written by 500 scientists and reviewed by about 500 other experts, is certainly comprehensive.

[7] Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments.

To give one concrete example of what these standards should accomplish, papers should not be published (and if published, should not be treated by professional scientists as «peer reviewed») without contemporary, unqualified access to all data and methods required for others to reproduce the work.

The peer - reviewed study, led by scientists from The Nature Conservancy and 15 other institutions, and published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, expanded and refined the scope of land - based climate solutions previously assessed by the United Nations» Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC).

In a poll of scientists in different fields by Doran and Kendall Zimmerman (2009), 97 % of those who published at least half of their peer - reviewed research in the climate field agreed that human activity was significant in changing global temperature; at the other extreme, only 47 % of economic geologists (typically employed by oil companies and the like) concurred.

Last week, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R) sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking her to maintain the current standard and saying the agency is not allowing «for full consideration of alternatives and review by expert scientist at other federal agencies.»

The most comprehensive peer - reviewed studies done by independent scientists evaluate air pollution, worker safety, and all of the other risks in energy production and find that nuclear is safer than coal, oil, natural gas, and even solar.20, 21