• 제목/요약/키워드: falsification of hypotheses

검색결과 3건 처리시간 0.015초

Auditor's Report and the Impact of Non-Audit Services, Audit Institutions

  • Mohammadi, Shaban;Dashtbayaz, Mahmoud Lari
    • 융합경영연구
    • /
    • 제3권2호
    • /
    • pp.1-8
    • /
    • 2015
  • In this paper, the effects of auditor change on audit quality in companies accepted in Tehran stock exchange placed review and we assessed the presence or absence of a significant correlation between them. to assess the quality of data auditing and tax distortions, falsification of accounting estimates, distortion of rules, distortion caused by mistakes in applying accounting policies and other distortions are used as the dependent variable Is. the sample group consisted of 56 companies as experimental group and a control group of 56 other companies a 4-year period, during the years 2011 to 2014 were studied. data needed for research discovery success ratio distortion before and after the change of auditor. To test the research hypotheses paired comparison method is used.

학생 선개념을 지지하는 증거와 반증하는 증거에 대한 학생의 반응 (Students' Responses on the Supporting or Conflicting Evidences on Thier Preconception)

  • 박종원;김익균;이무;김명환
    • 한국과학교육학회지
    • /
    • 제18권3호
    • /
    • pp.283-296
    • /
    • 1998
  • 본 연구는 정전기 유도(유전분극)현상에 대한 학생의 선개념을 조사하고, 선개념을 지지하는 증거와 반증하는 증거를 관찰하게 하여 학생의 반응을 조사하는 연구이다. 증거를 학생이 직접 선택하게 하였을 때, 선택 유형은 두 가지로 나타났다: 자신의 생각이 불확실하여 확인하기 위해 증거를 선택하는 경우와, 자신의 생각을 확신하면서 확증 증거로서 관찰하고자 하는 경우, 각각의 선택유형은 다시 각각 3개와 2개의 하위 유형으로 나눌 수 있었다. 학생의 관찰 결과를 보면 모든 학생이 관찰 결과를 받아들여, 자신의 생각을 반증하는 경우에 대해서도 관찰자체를 거부하는 경우는 없었다. 자신의 생각을 지지하는 증거에 대해서는 대부분의 학생이 후건 긍정식의 오류를 범하여, 계속적으로 확증증거를 요구하지는 않는 것으로 나타났다. 자신의 생각을 반증하는 증거에 대해서는 학생의 반응이 크게 두 가지로 나뉘어졌다: 반증 증거에 의해 자신의 생각을 폐기한 경우와 핵심원리를 폐기하기보다는 관련된 다른 보조 이론을 수정 보완하는 경우, 첫 번째 경우는 다시 3가지로 세분화되었는데, 공통적인 특징으로는 새로운 개념을 도입 하였다는 것이었다. 이것은 학생의 개념 변화를 이해하는 데, 포퍼보다는 라카토스식 설명이 더 적절함을 보여주는 것이었다. 두 번째 경우도 다시 3개 하위 유형으로 나뉘어졌으며, 대학생보다는 중학생의 경우에 더 많았다. 즉, 관련 보조 이론에 대한 이해가 부족한 경우에는 핵심원리(오개념)를 폐기하기 보다는 관련 보조 이론을 수정 보완하는 것으로 나타나, 개념변화에서는 관련 보조 개념에 대한 이해도 중요한 역할을 할 수 있음을 알수 있었다.

  • PDF

KODISA 연구윤리의 표절 판단기준과 글로벌 학술지 가이드라인 (The Standard of Judgement on Plagiarism in Research Ethics and the Guideline of Global Journals for KODISA)

  • 황희중;김동호;윤명길;이정완;이종호
    • 유통과학연구
    • /
    • 제12권6호
    • /
    • pp.15-20
    • /
    • 2014
  • Purpose - In general, researchers try to abide by the code of research ethics, but many of them are not fully aware of plagiarism, unintentionally committing the research misconduct when they write a research paper. This research aims to introduce researchers a clear and easy guideline at a conference, which helps researchers avoid accidental plagiarism by addressing the issue. This research is expected to contribute building a climate and encouraging creative research among scholars. Research design, data, methodology & Results - Plagiarism is considered a sort of research misconduct along with fabrication and falsification. It is defined as an improper usage of another author's ideas, language, process, or results without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism has nothing to do with examining the truth or accessing value of research data, process, or results. Plagiarism is determined based on whether a research corresponds to widely-used research ethics, containing proper citations. Within academia, plagiarism goes beyond the legal boundary, encompassing any kind of intentional wrongful appropriation of a research, which was created by another researchers. In summary, the definition of plagiarism is to steal other people's creative idea, research model, hypotheses, methods, definition, variables, images, tables and graphs, and use them without reasonable attribution to their true sources. There are various types of plagiarism. Some people assort plagiarism into idea plagiarism, text plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism, and idea distortion. Others view that plagiarism includes uncredited usage of another person's work without appropriate citations, self-plagiarism (using a part of a researcher's own previous research without proper citations), duplicate publication (publishing a researcher's own previous work with a different title), unethical citation (using quoted parts of another person's research without proper citations as if the parts are being cited by the current author). When an author wants to cite a part that was previously drawn from another source the author is supposed to reveal that the part is re-cited. If it is hard to state all the sources the author is allowed to mention the original source only. Today, various disciplines are developing their own measures to address these plagiarism issues, especially duplicate publications, by requiring researchers to clearly reveal true sources when they refer to any other research. Conclusions - Research misconducts including plagiarism have broad and unclear boundaries which allow ambiguous definitions and diverse interpretations. It seems difficult for researchers to have clear understandings of ways to avoid plagiarism and how to cite other's works properly. However, if guidelines are developed to detect and avoid plagiarism considering characteristics of each discipline (For example, social science and natural sciences might be able to have different standards on plagiarism.) and shared among researchers they will likely have a consensus and understanding regarding the issue. Particularly, since duplicate publications has frequently appeared more than plagiarism, academic institutions will need to provide pre-warning and screening in evaluation processes in order to reduce mistakes of researchers and to prevent duplicate publications. What is critical for researchers is to clearly reveal the true sources based on the common citation rules and to only borrow necessary amounts of others' research.