Gratis dating for par nyborg

The Case Two psychologists, professor emer. Double Relaxed Darwinian Selection, first published Sluts in alvorada on 2. Apriland then printed in in Personality and Individual Differences, vol. The accusations1 The plaintiffs filed a very long list of accusations, which vary far and wide in scope and nature: October to a conclusion: Out of the long list of accusations, two had substance: HN has presented a misleading reference to a data source. Gratis dating for par nyborg is scientific misconduct and compares to uninformed construction of data or substitution with fictive data.

The majority 4 finds HN guilty in wrongfully assuming the role of sole author. The minority 2 finds that HN had not indicated wrongful authorship. DCSD accordingly requested that the Decay paper shall be retracted from the international literature in accordance with Paragraph 15, stk. DCSD Gratis dating for par nyborg that there is no option for appeal. Reply I will in this brief reply argue that the verdict is based on substandard premises, which do not justify Gratis dating for par nyborg of the paper. Because the verdict cannot be appealed, I will appeal for Gratis dating for par nyborg support, based on the following arguments.

Gratis dating for par nyborg reference Based on an evaluation by an external expert Lisbeth B. Knudsen; LBK, Aalborg University, DKthe committee concluded that the reference to UN birth data was misleading, because it was used to support data, which are not found there. The reference leads correctly to the data used for analysis. However, I made an error of omission, when I failed in the methodology section to describe a proportional parameter transformation. This transformation was needed, because the UN Fertility Rates at the correctly referenced data source Gratis dating for par nyborg be used as input in the mathematical projection model only, if transformed to Crude Birth Rates.

A few words serve to illustrate the function of this straightforward data parameter transformation and why it has no consequences whatsoever for the conclusion. When two countries have similar Total Fertility Rates the UN measure presented at the correctly referred data sourceand close to or similar age distribution, then there will be born close to or a similar number of children per 1. Contrary-wise, if two countries have very different Total Fertility Rates, and comparable age distributions, then the number of children born per 1.

The transformation of one Gratis dating for par nyborg into the other Gratis dating for par nyborg proportionality calculation has nothing to do with construction of data, neither with substitution with fictive data. An estimation of data, based on variables and parameters, differs fundamentally from producing fictive data. The obvious character of this operation is the most likely reason why several anonymous international Gratis dating for par nyborg specialists did not ask HN to add the description of it to the methodology section, well knowing that the paper was under heavy space restrictions max.

They also knew that the parameter transformation makes no difference whatsoever to the conclusion of the study. However, as soon as this omission was seen as problematic, HN submitted an Addendum to the publisher, explaining the proportional data transformation with a copy to DCSD. Issuing such Addenda is the normal scientific procedure for correcting omissions, even if the omission changes nothing of substance. It is considered good scientific practice, rather than serious breach of same. However, the expert opinion cannot be considered part of a critique, but rather a statement of a fact: The systematic population development - IQ coupling is, to the best of Gratis dating for par nyborg knowledge, a new, creative, and highly useful construction, not to be found elsewhere in the demographic literature.

Finally, LBK apparently did not realize that the committee only asked her to comment on the formula for population development without IQ - the one which was correctly presented in the Decay article in the form of a simple mathematical population projection model. The fact that IQ was later coupled to the outcome of this population model in the form of a simple multiplication and a weighted average is neither a matter for judgment in the present court case, nor for the external expert on demographics to comment on, and it is certainly not relevant for the question of scientific misconduct.

Flawed accusations about hidden authorship The DCSD committee was divided with respect to the accusation that HN had deliberately disguised the existence of an important co-author JEVhad secretly used him as a so-called Ghost-writer, or simply had wrongfully claimed sole authorship. The paid economist JEV did not write one word in the paper, but he did suggest changes to, and proof-read, and corrected the short methodology section with respect to proper use of the population projection model. He further acted as a consultant on how the data were optimally and correctly treated in the population model which, by the way, differs in application from his own model.

The model was needed to circumvent deficits in the officially available data on births for the present purpose. I needed numbers for birth by country of origin, so the officially given numbers by legally ascribed citizenship were of little use. Moreover, the number of immigrants and their children of foreign origin at any time status point was also absent. These problems with the official data are described in the Decay paper. By so doing I unknowingly deviated from the qualifications of the Vancouver Protocol for authorship. This protocol states that in order to be credited as an author, each and every author on a publication needs to have been involved in the: Conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data AND 2.

Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content AND 3. Final approval of the version to be published. However, DCSD did not consider it relevant that JEV twice declined my invitation for co-authorship, and that he had not written one word in the paper. In other words, if a paid data consultant declines an invitation to appear as co-author, the DCSD decision leaves a scientist with three choices: To physically force him to put his name on the paper as co-author or in an acknowledgementwhich I believe is against the laws, 2. To not publish it, which I believe is against the interest of science, or 3. To respect his decision to leave out his name, publish the paper, and risk being accused of scientific misconduct.

Perspectives The case raises questions. In general, is it in the best interest of science, that: More specifically, the case also raises questions, which are partly related to DCSD, partly to the practice at other universities: Do you agree that the standards were raised too high in the present case? December wrote to then Rector Laurits B. However, as my local defense line has been run down, I am interested in learning about your response to one or more of the above mentioned questions, and in you making it known.

The background Science is self-correcting. When a paper on an important matter is published with invalid methods or questionable conclusions, other researcher will soon correct this, and science moves on. The three plaintiffs use the opposite strategy. They never publish their critique in the relevant international specialist-forum, where the Decay article is printed. Instead they submit a veritable broad-side of very different accusations to local national newspapers and committees, hoping that at least some of them sticks. In this way they can be sure to shun critical responses from specialists in the areas, and instead correspond with the occasional invited external reviewer who does not always address the relevant questions.

This strategy is not intended to promote science, but rather to obstruct scientists working in psychometrics, differential psychology, behavior genetics, or with evolutionary theory, which they dislike and see as right-wing extremism. The plaintiffs are even admirably candid about their strategy. In fact, they politically motivated their critique of the Decay paper when they wrote to DCSD, to the Trade Union Periodical Forskerforumand when addressing the public press. In this they line up with the actions of American similarly left-wing oriented groups of academics who describe themselves as fire brigades, who feel obliged to put out to all scientific right-wing inspired fires they find morally or politically offensive conf.

He often refers to, misinterprets, or condemns lectures that HN either presents or attends to. The second plaintiff, professor emer. The left-oriented periodical systematically misconstrued the case and raised a biased public debate, but denied HN proper response. Such a strategy is guaranteed to succeed. Few research projects are entirely flawless and finding just one error - intended or not - suffices to claim evil intentions, given proper malice. This is why the Decay article at the same time enjoys a good reception it is fairly well cited in critical international circles, but is being considered a prime example of extreme propaganda and scientific misconduct in Denmark, eagerly saluted by a sympathetic press.

All it takes is to fabricate a series of accusations, then leak confidential hearings to a sympathetic press, and finally to prevent the accused from a proper response. The plaintiffs were, in fact, able to correctly predict with confidence the outcome of current process, months before the actual verdict was available. The verdict gives food for thought for young scientist. They have from now on to make absolutely certain, that not even the slightest error or misunderstanding or omission occur in their manuscript or reference list. Just one silly error or omission may ruin their career forever. This obviously is not productive for creative science.

As a reviewer and editor for a life-time, I routinely came across multiple minor, and sometimes also major errors, even in papers from the best in the field. Ordinarily, none of these faults are ill-willed, but even if they were, all the important ones will be eagerly corrected by competent critiques in the relevant open scientific fora — also those which went under the radar of the reviewers. The less important errors will mercifully die out in the fullness of time. There is accordingly no need for institutions like DCSD, which are bound by narrow legal rules and only partly enlightened by specialized scientific insight. The Decay case is a first-class illustration that determined colleagues can misuse DCSD to serve their personal and political purposes, in order to impede politically incorrect science like intelligence research.

They turned the committee into a useful misconstruction, which ought to be closed down as soon as possible. In conclusion, the Decay case illustrates a full-scale attempt to try and close down research in important areas of science — demography, psychometrics, differential psychology, behavior genetics, and evolutionary theory. I urge all objectively oriented academics to react strongly against such attempts to censure papers in these areas. I urge you to take active countermeasures. Bad things happen when good Men remain silent.




Not just apartments – we have these places to stay too!

The second plaintiff, professor emer.

Battle of Nyborg

Knudsen; LBK, Aalborg University, DKthe committee concluded that the reference to UN birth data was misleading, because it was used to support data, which are not found there. He often refers to, misinterprets, or condemns lectures that HN either presents or attends to. Contrary-wise, if two countries have very different Total Fertility Rates, and comparable age distributions, then the number of children born per 1. Out of the long list of accusations, two had substance:.


Bus Copenhagen Airport ↔ Nyborg from $9.99

The 10 Best Apartments in Nyborg, Denmark | infolog.info

Married and lonely female wanting for sex in halle Naked spreading pussy

Your Browser Isn't Supported

Professor Nyborg censured in Denmark

10 essential qualities of a real man worth dating Adult personals in rosemont md