It is a correct and usable phrase in written English.
You can use it to describe a situation where someone or something is acknowledged or recognized in a scientific context, such as through a prize or an award. Example sentence: After decades of groundbreaking research, she finally received scientific recognition when she was awarded the Nobel Prize.
Reaching the top tiers of scientific recognition, however, remained difficult for women.
Though she once described herself as "well known throughout the whole of Europe," true scientific recognition was late in coming.
The researchers think Dawson, who died in 1916, had a motive: he had put his name to more than 50 scientific publications and he wanted scientific recognition.
He said that at the time, he was as much interested in attaining scientific recognition as he was in making a commercial blue L.E.D. Since so few people were experimenting with gallium nitride, it seemed to be an obvious candidate.
Then, in a highly unusual public write-in campaign for scientific recognition, Dr. Damadian began taking out full-page advertisements in six major international newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Times of London.
But there is also a growing scientific recognition that many of a screen's unrivalled assets – search, boundless and bottomless capacity, links and leaps and seamless navigation – are either unhelpful or downright destructive when it comes to certain kinds of reading and writing.
The currency of that scientific realm is recognition within academic circles and academic promotion.
If you're eager for attention, fans and face recognition, scientific research is not for you.
Nonlinear dimensionality reduction is a challenging problem encountered in a variety of high dimensional data analysis, including machine learning, pattern recognition, scientific visualization, and neural computation.
This analysis is time consuming and error prone, thus in the recent past we have witnessed a growing interest in the pattern recognition scientific community directed at the development of methods for supporting this complex task.
The editorial identifies another four issues that contribute to bias in medical literature and a lack of transparency in scientific publishing, namely, recognition of interests beyond commercial, the problem of ghost writing, undisclosed original protocols, and the bias toward publishing only "exciting" results.
