首页
登录
职称英语
There is a phenomena in the present. The average number of authors on scien
There is a phenomena in the present. The average number of authors on scien
游客
2023-09-04
54
管理
问题
There is a phenomena in the present. The average number of authors on scientific papers is sky rocketing. What is the main reason for it? That’s partly because labs arc bigger, problems are more complicated, and more different subspecialties are needed. But it’s also because US government agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have started to promote "team science". As physics developed in the post-World War II era, federal funds built expensive national facilities, and these served as surfaces on which collaborations could crystallize naturally.
Yet multiple authorship—however good it may be in other ways—presents for journals and for the institutions in which these authors work. For the journals, long lists of authors are hard to deal with in them selves. But those long lists give rise to more serious questions when something goes wrong with the paper. If there is research misconduct, should the liability be joint and several, accruing to all authors? If not, then how should it be allocated among them? If there is an honest mistake in one part of the work but not in others, how should an evaluator aim his or her review?
Various practical or impractical suggestions have emerged during the long-standing debate on this issue. One is that each author should provide, and the journal should then publish, an account of that author’s particular contribution to the work. But a different view of the problem, and perhaps of the solution, comes as we get to university committee on appointments and promotions, which is where the authorship rubber really meets the road. Half a lifetime of involvement with this process has taught me how much authorship mat tars. I have watched committees attempting to decode sequences of names, agonize over whether a much cited paper was re ally the candidate’s work or a coauthor’s, and send back recommendations asking for more specificity about the division of responsibility.
Problems of this kind change the argument, supporting the case for asking authors to define their own roles. After all, if quality judgments about individuals are to be made on the basis of their personal contributions, then the judges better know what they did. But if questions arise about the validity of the work as a whole, whether as challenges to its conduct or as evaluations of its influence in the field, a team is a team, and the members should share the credit or the blame. [br] There is a tendency that scientific papers are ______.
选项
A、getting more complicated
B、dealing with bigger problems
C、more of a product of team work
D、focusing more on natural than on social sciences
答案
C
解析
细节题 。第一段说“这部分是因为实验室更大了,问题更加复杂,而更多是因为……”,而且也是因为美国政府开始促进“团队科学”,故答案为C项。
转载请注明原文地址:http://tihaiku.com/zcyy/2983513.html
相关试题推荐
Thisyear,thenumberofaccidentshas_________thatoflastyear.A、overtakenB
Itissaidthatthenumberofthepeoplewhodiedonhighwayshasexceededthe_
Whenanumberofpeople______togetherinaconversationalknot,eachindividua
Schoolslookingtobancellphonesmayhaveanewexcuse:agrowingnumbero
Schoolslookingtobancellphonesmayhaveanewexcuse:agrowingnumbero
Schoolslookingtobancellphonesmayhaveanewexcuse:agrowingnumbero
Schoolslookingtobancellphonesmayhaveanewexcuse:agrowingnumbero
Schoolslookingtobancellphonesmayhaveanewexcuse:agrowingnumbero
Schoolslookingtobancellphonesmayhaveanewexcuse:agrowingnumbero
[originaltext]TheaveragecollegestudentinAmericaspentanestimated700
随机试题
[img]2014m5x/ct_egreqm_egreqjs_0128_20135[/img]A、5B、12C、24D、33E、41CThecorr
Aseveryschoolboyknows,insectspollinateflowers,whilebirdsandmammals
粮食筒仓的耐火等级不应低于()级。A.一 B.二 C.三 D.四
从信息化建设的角度出发,以下说法错误的是()A.有效开发利用信息资源 B.大力
54,18,36,24,32,()。
局麻药经静脉注入而产生麻醉者称静脉麻醉下列哪个药物应用后在肌肉开始松弛以前常有1
关于涉外民事诉讼,下列哪一选项是正确的?(2007年)A.涉外民事诉讼中的司法
湿热下注所致的淋证宜用A.八正合剂 B.肾炎四味片 C.九气拈痛丸 D.癃
投资项目决策分析与评价的基本要求包括贯彻落实科学发展观、资料数据准确可靠和()
患者男,23岁。11月份因发热、头痛,呕吐3天为主诉入院。体检:面颈部潮红,双腋
最新回复
(
0
)