メンデルの法則 (Japanese Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "メンデルの法則" in Japanese language version.

refsWebsite

Global rank Japanese rank

15nih.gov

4^th place

24^th place

8doi.org

2^nd place

6^th place

3genetics.org

low place

2oxfordjournals.org

1,389^th place

1,710^th place

1handle.net

102^nd place

78^th place

1apa.org

1,220^th place

2,459^th place

1books.google.com

3^rd place

61^st place

apa.org

Price, Michael (2010). “Sins against science: Data fabrication and other forms of scientific misconduct may be more prevalent than you think”. Monitor on Psychology 41 (7): 44.

books.google.com

Franklin, Allan; Edwards, AWF; Fairbanks, Daniel J; Hartl, Daniel L (2008). Ending the Mendel-Fisher controversy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. p. 67. ISBN 978-0-8229-4319-8

doi.org

Fisher, R.A. (1936). “Has Mendel's work been rediscovered?”. Annals of Science 1 (2): 115–137. doi:10.1080/00033793600200111. https://hdl.handle.net/2440/15123.
Thompson, EA (1990). “R.A. Fisher's contributions to genetical statistics”. Biometrics 46 (4): 905–14. doi:10.2307/2532436. PMID 2085639.
Magnello, ME (1998). “Karl Pearson's mathematization of inheritance: from ancestral heredity to Mendelian genetics (1895-1909)”. Annals of Science 55 (1): 35–94. doi:10.1080/00033799800200111. PMID 11619806.
Piegorsch, WW (1990). “Fisher's contributions to genetics and heredity, with special emphasis on the Gregor Mendel controversy”. Biometrics 46 (4): 915–924. doi:10.2307/2532437. PMID 2085640.
Porteous, JW (2004). “We still fail to account for Mendel's observations.”. Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling 16 (1): 4. doi:10.1186/1742-4682-1-4. PMC 516238. PMID 15312231.
Fairbanks, D. J.; Schaalje, G. B. (2007). “The tetrad-pollen model fails to explain the bias in Mendel's pea (Pisum sativum) experiments”. Genetics 177 (4): 2531–2534. doi:10.1534/genetics.107.079970. PMC 2219470. PMID 18073445.
Novitski, Charles E. (2004). “On Fisher's criticism of Mendel's results with the garden pea”. Genetics 166 (3): 1133–1136. doi:10.1534/genetics.166.3.1133. PMC 1470775. PMID 15082533 2010年3月20日閲覧. "In conclusion, Fisher’s criticism of Mendel’s data—that Mendel was obtaining data too close to false expectations in the two sets of experiments involving the determination of segregation ratios—is undoubtedly unfounded"
Novitski, C. E. (2004). “Revision of Fisher's analysis of Mendel's garden pea experiments”. Genetics 166 (3): 1139–1140. doi:10.1534/genetics.166.3.1139. PMC 1470784. PMID 15082535.

genetics.org

Charles E. Novitski (2004). “Revision of Fisher's Analysis of Mendel's Garden Pea Experiments”. Genetics 166 (3): 1139-1140.
E. Novitski (2004). “On Fisher's Criticism of Mendel's Results With the Garden Pea”. Genetics 166 (3): 1133-1136.
Novitski, Charles E. (2004). “On Fisher's criticism of Mendel's results with the garden pea”. Genetics 166 (3): 1133–1136. doi:10.1534/genetics.166.3.1133. PMC 1470775. PMID 15082533 2010年3月20日閲覧. "In conclusion, Fisher’s criticism of Mendel’s data—that Mendel was obtaining data too close to false expectations in the two sets of experiments involving the determination of segregation ratios—is undoubtedly unfounded"

handle.net

hdl.handle.net

Fisher, R.A. (1936). “Has Mendel's work been rediscovered?”. Annals of Science 1 (2): 115–137. doi:10.1080/00033793600200111. https://hdl.handle.net/2440/15123.

nih.gov

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Thompson, EA (1990). “R.A. Fisher's contributions to genetical statistics”. Biometrics 46 (4): 905–14. doi:10.2307/2532436. PMID 2085639.
Pilgrim, I (1984). “The too-good-to-be-true paradox and Gregor Mendel”. The Journal of Heredity 75 (6): 501–502. PMID 6392413.
Magnello, ME (1998). “Karl Pearson's mathematization of inheritance: from ancestral heredity to Mendelian genetics (1895-1909)”. Annals of Science 55 (1): 35–94. doi:10.1080/00033799800200111. PMID 11619806.
Hartl, Daniel L.; Fairbanks, Daniel J. (2007). “Mud sticks: On the alleged falsification of Mendel's Data”. Genetics 175 (3): 975–979. PMC 1840063. PMID 17384156.
Piegorsch, WW (1990). “Fisher's contributions to genetics and heredity, with special emphasis on the Gregor Mendel controversy”. Biometrics 46 (4): 915–924. doi:10.2307/2532437. PMID 2085640.
Porteous, JW (2004). “We still fail to account for Mendel's observations.”. Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling 16 (1): 4. doi:10.1186/1742-4682-1-4. PMC 516238. PMID 15312231.
Fairbanks, D. J.; Schaalje, G. B. (2007). “The tetrad-pollen model fails to explain the bias in Mendel's pea (Pisum sativum) experiments”. Genetics 177 (4): 2531–2534. doi:10.1534/genetics.107.079970. PMC 2219470. PMID 18073445.
Novitski, Charles E. (2004). “On Fisher's criticism of Mendel's results with the garden pea”. Genetics 166 (3): 1133–1136. doi:10.1534/genetics.166.3.1133. PMC 1470775. PMID 15082533 2010年3月20日閲覧. "In conclusion, Fisher’s criticism of Mendel’s data—that Mendel was obtaining data too close to false expectations in the two sets of experiments involving the determination of segregation ratios—is undoubtedly unfounded"
Monaghan, F; Corcos, A (1985). “Chi-square and Mendel's experiments: where's the bias?”. The Journal of Heredity 76 (4): 307–309. PMID 4031468.
Novitski, C. E. (2004). “Revision of Fisher's analysis of Mendel's garden pea experiments”. Genetics 166 (3): 1139–1140. doi:10.1534/genetics.166.3.1139. PMC 1470784. PMID 15082535.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Hartl, Daniel L.; Fairbanks, Daniel J. (2007). “Mud sticks: On the alleged falsification of Mendel's Data”. Genetics 175 (3): 975–979. PMC 1840063. PMID 17384156.
Porteous, JW (2004). “We still fail to account for Mendel's observations.”. Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling 16 (1): 4. doi:10.1186/1742-4682-1-4. PMC 516238. PMID 15312231.
Fairbanks, D. J.; Schaalje, G. B. (2007). “The tetrad-pollen model fails to explain the bias in Mendel's pea (Pisum sativum) experiments”. Genetics 177 (4): 2531–2534. doi:10.1534/genetics.107.079970. PMC 2219470. PMID 18073445.
Novitski, Charles E. (2004). “On Fisher's criticism of Mendel's results with the garden pea”. Genetics 166 (3): 1133–1136. doi:10.1534/genetics.166.3.1133. PMC 1470775. PMID 15082533 2010年3月20日閲覧. "In conclusion, Fisher’s criticism of Mendel’s data—that Mendel was obtaining data too close to false expectations in the two sets of experiments involving the determination of segregation ratios—is undoubtedly unfounded"
Novitski, C. E. (2004). “Revision of Fisher's analysis of Mendel's garden pea experiments”. Genetics 166 (3): 1139–1140. doi:10.1534/genetics.166.3.1139. PMC 1470784. PMID 15082535.