Author(s)

Boris Menin

Independent Researcher, Beer-Sheva, Israel.

The escalating costs of research and development, coupled with the influx of researchers, have led to a surge in published articles across scientific disciplines. However, concerns have arisen regarding the accuracy, validity, and reproducibility of reported findings. Issues such as replication problems, fraudulent practices, and a lack of expertise in measurement theory and uncertainty analysis have raised doubts about the reliability and credibility of scientific research. Rigorous assessment practices in certain fields highlight the importance of identifying potential errors and understanding the relationship between technical parameters and research outcomes. To address these concerns, a universally applicable criterion called comparative certainty is urgently needed. This criterion, grounded in an analysis of the modeling process and information transmission, accumulation, and transformation in both theoretical and applied research, aims to evaluate the acceptable deviation between a model and the observed phenomenon. It provides a theoretically grounded framework applicable to all scientific disciplines adhering to the International System of Units (SI). Objective evaluations based on this criterion can enhance the reproducibility and reliability of scientific investigations, instilling greater confidence in published findings. Establishing this criterion would be a significant stride towards ensuring the robustness and credibility of scientific research across disciplines.

Amount of Information, Information Channel, Measurement, Model, System of Units, Uncertainty, Underwater Electrical Discharge

Menin, B. (2023) Advancing Scientific Rigor: Towards a Universal Informational Criterion for Assessing Model-Phenomenon Mismatch. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 11, 1817-1836. doi: 10.4236/jamp.2023.117117.