I wonder if there are any scientific papers in the field of biological sciences without any of these words, regardless of the topic. If this list is genuine, this is completely insane.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Often potential research impact of grants is articulated in terms of socioeconomic benefit. And if studying vertebrates it is pretty standard practice to report the sex. Beyond that, we know that work done in a respectful, inclusive and ethical way is more likely to yield success.
I've used words like biased, systemic, and underrepresented in seismology papers. These words aren't even necessarily related to humans. An Earth model could be biased by an underrepresentation of different seismic phases. You could have an algorithm which adds systemic error to your predictions.
Black holes are also banned. It’s a blanket attack on science. We need to stop looking at ways around it and tackle it head on as a united scientific community addressing the reality of what they are trying to do. I’m not in America and am not American but this is definitely deeply disturbing
Exactly. I'm dealing with "excluded" observations from faulty instruments in Ocean Sciences. Knowledge on the global Ocean might be "biased" due to the Southern Ocean being "historically" undersampled. Thermohaline gradients cause marine "barriers".
An ecosystem simulation might benefit from
"enhancing diversity" of represented species. Is that a puzzle lover's attempt to promote clozes in scientific journals?
The rules require that we use many of these words because they are part of explaining the experimental design. And then there's the ethics laws and rules. I don't do research, but I am certified to perform research on human and animal subjects.
Comments
https://bsky.app/profile/kennarubin.bsky.social/post/3lhdwq3mw7s2p
"enhancing diversity" of represented species. Is that a puzzle lover's attempt to promote clozes in scientific journals?