Feb 25, 2007 23:50
18 yrs ago
Russian term

повторять результаты

Russian to English Science Science (general) scientific writing
Статья ... повторяет результаты, которые автор настоящей статьи получил и опубликовал более 35 лет назад.

Имеется в виду, что один автор опубликовал результаты как новые, а оказалось, что они уже когда-то давно были опубликованы другим автором.

У меня ощущение, что я когда-то задавал похожий вопрос. Найти не смог

Proposed translations

+3
1 hr
Selected

repeat the results

To my non-native ear, this seems most natural, given that the same results were obtained without any knowledge of the previous results.

The causation of smoking to cancer, for instance, was only confirmed after many studies repeated the results. If you hear or read about a poll, study, ...
www.pivot.net/~jpierce/Brief Guide to Statistical Manipulat...
Peer comment(s):

agree Jack Doughty : To my native ear too.
6 hrs
Thanks, Jack.
agree Dylan Edwards
6 hrs
Thanks, Dylan.
agree David Knowles : This is what I would have said, and I can't see any reason to move away from the literal translation.
7 hrs
Thanks, David.
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "Thank you all!"
1 min

reproduce the results

.
Peer comment(s):

neutral GaryG : In this context this suggests something done to confirm a scientific result and would normally be the translation of воспроизводить
4 mins
Yes, your variant is probably more up to the point
Something went wrong...
+6
4 mins

replicates the results

I think that this is closest to the idea
Peer comment(s):

agree Vitaly Kisin : quite; or "are a replica of the results...". You reoroduce someone's results if you wish to check if those were correct
1 hr
neutral Alexander Demyanov : "Replicate" seems to be more like "duplicate", i.e. produce again with the original in mind. Per asker's note to Jennifer's anser. Author 2 had no knowledge of Author 1's results.
1 hr
agree Olga Cartlidge
2 hrs
neutral Marina Khonina : Agree with Alexander. Replication implies that the second author knew about the article published 35 years prior to his article.
2 hrs
No, repiication can also be accidental
agree Arthur Allmendinger
7 hrs
agree Kirill Semenov
7 hrs
agree diana bb
11 hrs
agree Dorene Cornwell : Replicate to me does NOT imply that the second author knew of the (reviewer's?) previous publication. Replicate is more neutral than confirm or duplicate which is why I like it here.
16 hrs
Something went wrong...
+1
2 mins

reiterates the results

Just one option. I'm sure others will come up with more.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 16 mins (2007-02-26 00:06:58 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I think it works here as well. It depends on how you read the original: did author 2 do his own study and get the same results as author 1, or did author 2 just restate author 1's results, essentially committing plagiarism? If the former, then GaryG's "replicate" works best; if the latter, then "reiterate".
Note from asker:
I don't think reiterate fits here. It would do if one author published the same results twice, no?
Author 2 did an independent study and was unaware of author 1's results. They both obtained the same results independently, one somewhat earlier
Peer comment(s):

agree Irene N
4 mins
Something went wrong...
+1
47 mins

mirrors the results

This set of findings mirrors the results of other research at NRC and elsewhere, which has shown that highfrequency electronic ballasts improve visual ...
irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/ctus/10_e.html - 30k - Cached - Similar pages
Peer comment(s):

agree Andrew Sabak
1 hr
Thank you, Andrew
Something went wrong...
7 hrs

the findings in the article...recur

*
Something went wrong...
10 hrs

coincide with the results

.
Something went wrong...
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search