The results of the research work in a manuscript can be validated with the results of previous similar work carried by many researchers. The efforts should be made to get improved results than the previous ones.
Hello Sir!
Although the question is covering a broad area and somewhat vague yet I am trying to answer it concisely.
Most of the time in scientific community we encounter the problem where no prior results are available in any particular field. In that case, one should separately validate each procedure weather it is experimental measurement or numerical techniques for the parameters as close as possible to the situation presented in the manuscript.
In another case when prior results are available but the facilities are not available to reproduce the results: One can think of collaborative work with the group where such facilities are available Or try to get some results in the simplified situation and propose some acceptable extrapolation scheme which can justify the results.
It depends on the subject of research.
The validation can be the large percentage of the resolution of your problem.
The validation can be a comparison of your solution with another that is already functional.
The validation can be a sumilation.
The validation can be an opinion of a big expert in the field.
Yhe validation can be a ........................................................
The results of the research work in a manuscript can be validated with the results of previous similar work carried by many researchers. The efforts should be made to get improved results than the previous ones.
It may possible to asking you what is the possible way to valid our research result especially in developed country. Our research is related by our need to be used to passing. We haven't the good condition of research not the exploitation of result research. Consequently the useful way is to validate our result in manuscript.
Do you have another way dear friend Mahesh.
Thanks for the good question.
Validation of present research findings can only be validated based on the previous works in the literature which could either be supported vis-à-vis the results your research findings or refuted by the same.
Thank you.
It is exactly how to precisely present your state of the problem under consideration.
Emad
In addition to the rich comments already given by colleagues, the novelty ideas espoused in the field of research is enough justification.
As academicians we would know the fact sir. Let me share the "validation of research work" for upcoming / emerging / future Research works.
"Whatever may be the field of study, It has to be "sustainable" research which will nothing to do against with environment"
If it is like playing with known chemicals and demonstrating the formation of new sort of chemical, please give up your research.
We already have entered into the worst phase of current human life Extinction.
In my opinion, the manuscript can be best validated by the subject experts.
Regards
Dr. Kamath Madhusudhana
Research work: If you are talking about data and results then others research in the same area can be a source of validation. Other than that methodology can be validated as well as strong theory building can be verfied via peer review process.
Regards...
Whenever I write a paper, review a paper a key item that I look for is whether the methodology and equipment has been validated, demonstrating the effectiveness of the research. Without validation, we risk presenting erroneous results, which could be detrimental to the interpretation.
Use of UPDATED knowledge of the experienced reviewer is the only effective way to perform the work nicely.
Validation can be done if similar studies conducted under similar conditions are available. The author should be able to explain the similarities and differences between the findings from different studies. If it is a study in the field of social sciences cross-cultural differences must be taken into account when comparing findings. If it is a study in the physical sciences field, then one would expect results from different studies to converge to the extent possible.
the best way is to compare the findings of a research with similar previous publications
Thanks
@ Pattanayak Ji
@ Waqas Al-Joboory
@ Srini Vasan
@ Borden Mushonga
for your replies
Thanks again
Stages of the investigation of a research manuscript
The investigation goes through three stages:
The first stage: the theoretical stage.
The second stage: the practical stage.
Third stage: the final stage.
The first stage: the theoretical stage and requires this stage does not come: 1 - Review the books that dealt with the subject of the investigation 2 - Knowledge of the most important libraries that deal with the manuscripts (the investigator to search for its manuscript in its glories in the world famous centers).
It depends on the topic under discussion. Keeping in mind the practical part; namely the findings and discussion.
Greetings , I think Scientific integrity & ethics is more important part of research validation. For example:
The U.S. government is poised to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol By Peter Whoriskey
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/10/feds-poised-to-withdraw-longstanding-warnings-about-dietary-cholesterol/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ac238e0a3a23
What is Ethics in Research & Why is it Important? by David B. Resnik, J.D., Ph.D. December 1, 2015
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm
I am still confused after reading above article. How to validate research result...... Big question mark on funding agency/company Vs Consumer Vs Scientist/researcher Vs Institution Vs Publisher.
After reading above article please let me know how to validate research results.
Kind regards,
Alok
In one of my fields, chemistry, validation of research work can be done if : a) The manuscript or the research paper is correct scientifically & linguistically. b) The stated results of the experiments or tests are reproducible.
While I was MSc student, a short communication was published in a journal about polymerizing a polar monomer using Ziegler-Natta catalyst and the authors promised to publish a full paper in the same journal to give more details about this "seemingly" outstanding discovery. I told one of my supervisors that the guys will never keep their promise because they made a big mistake. He asked me why & I told him that a polar monomer will react with the catalyst rendering it useless in polymerization. After years of watching, no paper came out from these guys.
Reproducible results have not been attained in a good number of cases among which there are "famous" stories such as the false claim of nuclear fusion at low temperature.
The above examples of invalid research work may be attributed to the "unhealthy" environment in the academic world which encourages "hasty" publications in order to collect more points for promotion or to produce a "fat" CV. Of course, this is against high quality in academic circles.
This is an important question.
A mathematical approach to validating a result in a research paper is to do the following:
1. Give a property of the result. This property should couple what is known about the result with established relationships known for similar results.
2. Give a Lemma needed to prove a property like the one you have stated.
3. Give a Theorem about the result property that can be proved using the Lemma.
More to the point, if you can prove a Theorem about a property of a result, you are well on your way to validating the result, theoretically.
I think, the best way is to compare the findings of a research with similar previous publications.
From the previous works, you can compare and validate your own work.
Repeat the experiment in a different institution, with a different set of investigators, with a different set of patients, using (as close as humanly possible) the same methodology.
Excellent answer was provided by dear Dr. Nizar Matar , thank you very much for your valuable clarification.
I am in a good concur with my colleague answer of dr. Nizar Matar .That covered and present to be as comprehensive answer.
Whenever, write a review a paper or edit a paper for peer review journal, a key item that we should look for is whether the methodology and equipment has been validated, demonstrating the effectiveness (accuracy and reliability) of the research. Without validation, we risk presenting erroneous results, which could be detrimental to the interpretation. It is essential to take time to work through the methods content carefully, checking for any items that require some form of validation and ensuring that these items are addressed prior to journal submission. It is worth making this effort, as it strengthens the reliability of the method and, hence, interpretation of the results, and may even make the difference between a manuscript being accepted or rejected.
In my own opinion, one of the ways to validate the results of the research is to compare the results of the study findings with the already existing empirical studies in the literature either to validate it or refute it.
That's the beauty of scientific research.
You must have scientific relations in your specialty with excellent experts who give you the right advice and have the ability to evaluate scientific work
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts