首页
登录
职称英语
There is a phenomena ill the present. The average number of authors on scient
There is a phenomena ill the present. The average number of authors on scient
游客
2024-05-29
48
管理
问题
There is a phenomena ill the present. The average number of authors on scientific papers is skyrocketing. What is the main reason for it? That’s partly because labs are 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 themselves. But those long lists give rise to more serious questions when something goes wrong with the paper. If there is research misconduct, should tile 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 matters. I have watched committees attempting to decode sequences of names, agonize over whether a much cited paper was really 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] Which of the following is the main reason for the multiple problems according to the passage?
选项
A、Writing scientific papers.
B、Collaboration ill writing scientific papers.
C、Advantages and disadvantages of team science.
D、Multiple authors.
答案
D
解析
细节辨认题。从整篇文章来看,主要讲的就是Multiple Authors(多个作者)及其所产生的multiple problems。因此D)是正确答案。
转载请注明原文地址:http://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3610176.html
相关试题推荐
[originaltext]Scientistssaysharkshavelivedintheworld’soceansformi
[originaltext]Scientistssaysharkshavelivedintheworld’soceansformi
ClimateChangeScientistspredictincreasi
ClimateChangeScientistspredictincreasi
ClimateChangeScientistspredictincreasi
ClimateChangeScientistspredictincreasi
ClimateChangeScientistspredictincreasi
TheEuropeanUnionhadapprovedanumberofgeneticallymodifiedcropsuntil
TheEuropeanUnionhadapprovedanumberofgeneticallymodifiedcropsuntil
TheEuropeanUnionhadapprovedanumberofgeneticallymodifiedcropsuntil
随机试题
Newresearchpointstoabiologicalroleincriminality.Thetattooonthee
DetailsDetermineSuccessForthispart,youareallowed30minutestowriteas
A.泻下力强 B.泻下力缓 C.善活血 D.善清中焦火热 E.善止血生大
红细胞生理性增多的因素包括A.婴幼儿 B.天热多汗 C.感情冲动 D.妊娠
尿沉渣常规检查时,标本制备离心处理所需相对离心力约为()A.200gB.400
下列不属于制备脂质体的方法是A:注入法 B:薄膜分散法 C:逆相蒸发法 D
在Word中,下列关于表格操作的表述不正确的是( )。A.两个连续单元格可合并
某医疗器械股份有限公司,2019年度实现销售收入3.8亿元、净利润0.9亿元,经
人民群众对于中国革命战争的成败起决定性作用。革命战争只有动员群众、依靠群众才能取
(2019年真题)实行会员分级结算制度的期货交易所会员由()组成。A.期货
最新回复
(
0
)