English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Innovation is the direct intended product of certain styles in research, butnot of others. Fundamental conflicts between descriptive vs inferentialstatistics, deductive vs inductive hypothesis testing, and exploratory vspre-planned confirmatory research designs have been played out over decades,with winners and losers and consequences. Longstanding warnings from bothacademics and research-funding interests have failed to influence effectivelythe course of these battles. The NIH publicly studied and diagnosed importantaspects of the problem a decade ago, resulting in outward changes in the grantreview process but not a definitive correction. Specific reforms coulddeliberately abate the damage produced by the current overemphasis oninferential statistics, power estimates, and prescriptive study design. Suchreform would permit a reallocation of resources to historically productiverapid exploratory efforts and considerably,increase the chances forhigher-impact research discoveries. We can profit from the history andfoundation of these conflicts to make specific recommendations foradministrative objectives and the process of peer review in decisions regardingresearch funding. (C) 2013 S. Kern

Inferential statistics, power estimates, and study design formalities continue to suppress biomedical innovation