{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02829313543599258, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006957328385899814, 'mean_word_length': 5.400593471810089, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Basic norms of the scientific ethos

The article aims to formulate and differentiate the norms of classical science, modern fundamental science, and applied science as wel as determine the areas where they intersect. The four standards of scientific ethos (CUDOS) proposed by R. Merton are considered: 1) Communalism: belief in the common achievements of scientific knowledge; 2) Universalism: the truth of statements should be evaluated regardless of the age, gender, race, authority and titles of scientists; 3) Disinterestedness: the primary stimulus of a scientist’s activity is a disinterested search for truth; 4) Organized Skepticism: the scientist is responsible for evaluating the soundness what other colleagues have done as well as the reliability of their results. Using the golden rule of morality, 12 more norms are formulated (5–16 in the text). A tendency of abandoning of Merton’s norms has arisen with the development of applied science and its commercialization. As an example, standards of the PLACE system by J. Ziman are described (ownership, patent; solution of local problems determined by authoritarian management; work orders; implementation of work by a limited circle of experts). When rejecting Merton’s norms, the features of fundamental and applied science are not taken into account. The article shows that Merton norms and the norms provided in paragraphs 5–16 relate to classical science and modern fundamental science. Ziman’s norms as well as the norms in the paragraphs noutid are applicable to applied science. The norms (5–16) are common to fundamental and applied science. Violations of the norms of scientific ethics, such as falsification of empirical material, plagiarism, incorrect quotation, undeserved authorship, and sale of dissertations, are highlighted the article. Their objective and subjective reasons are revealed. Although the behavior of scientists does not fully coincide with the norms of scientific ethos, it produces an important regulatory influence on the scientific community as an ideal, orienting scientists to achieve maximum objectivity of knowledge and its use for the benefit of society.