首页
登录
职称英语
Jan Hendrik Schon’s success seemed too good to be true, and it was. In only
Jan Hendrik Schon’s success seemed too good to be true, and it was. In only
游客
2025-04-26
29
管理
问题
Jan Hendrik Schon’s success seemed too good to be true, and it was. In only four years as a physicist at Bell Laboratories, Schon, 32, had co-authored 90 scientific papers—one every 16 days—detailing new discoveries in superconductivity, lasers, nano-technology and quantum physics. This output astonished his colleagues, and made them suspicious. When one co-worker noticed that the same table of data appeared in two separate papers—which also happened to appear in the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world, Science and Nature—the jig was up. In October 2002, a Bell Labs investigation found that Schon had falsified and fabricated data. His career as a scientist was finished. Scientific scandals, which are as old as science itself, tend to follow similar patterns of presumption and due reward.
In recent years, of course, the pressure on scientists to publish in the top journals has increased, making the journals much more crucial to career success. The questions are whether Nature and Science have become too powerful as arbiters of what science reaches to the public, and whether the journals are up to their task as gatekeepers.
Each scientific specialty has its own set of journals. Physicists have Physical Review Letters, neuroscientists have Neuron, and so forth. Science and Nature, though, are the only two major journals that cover the gamut of scientific disciplines, from meteorology and zoology to quantum physics and chemistry. As a result, journalists look to them each week for the cream of the crop of new science papers. And scientists look to the journals in part to reach journalists. Why do they care? Competition for grants has gotten so fierce that scientists have sought popular renown to gain an edge over their rivals. Publication in specialized journals will win the acclaims from academics and satisfy the publish-or-perish imperative, but Science and Nature come with the added bonus of potentially getting your paper written up in the New York Times and other publications.
Scientists tend to pay more attention to the big two than to other journals. When more scientists know about a particular paper, they’re more apt to cite it in their own papers. Being oftcited will increase a scientist’s "Impact Factor", a measure of how often papers are cited by peers. Funding agencies use the "Impact Factor" as a rough measure of the influence of scientists they’re considering supporting. [br] The achievements of Jan Hendrik Schon turned out to be______.
选项
A、surprising
B、inconceivable
C、praiseworthy
D、fraudulent
答案
D
解析
推理题。此题解题点在第一段的“In October 2002,a Bell Labs investigation found that Schon had falsified and fabricated data”。A项意为“令人惊讶的”,B项意为“不可思议的”,C项意为“值得表扬的”,D项意为是“欺诈的,不诚实的”。只有D项与falsified and fabricated同义,因此正确答案是D项。
转载请注明原文地址:http://tihaiku.com/zcyy/4054707.html
相关试题推荐
Whatdotheextraordinarilysuccessfulcompanieshaveincommon?To
Whatdotheextraordinarilysuccessfulcompanieshaveincommon?To
Whatdotheextraordinarilysuccessfulcompanieshaveincommon?To
Astrongsupportfromthelocalauthorityis______tothesuccessoftheprojec
JanHendrikSchon’ssuccessseemedtoogoodtobetrue,anditwas.Inonly
JanHendrikSchon’ssuccessseemedtoogoodtobetrue,anditwas.Inonly
Neverhasastraitjacketseemedsoill-fittingorsoinsecure.TheEuroarea
Neverhasastraitjacketseemedsoill-fittingorsoinsecure.TheEuroarea
Thelocalauthoritiesseemedto______fortheaccidentthattookplacelastwee
Whatdotheextraordinarilysuccessfulcompanieshaveincommon?Tofindout
随机试题
IsabellaSantorum,thefragile3-year-olddaughterofRickSantorum,l._____
关于行业标准与国家标准之间的效力关系,下列说法错误的是()。A、行业标准在相应的
A.脾气下陷证B.脾不统血证C.脾阴虚证D.脾胃湿热证E.寒湿困脾证脘腹胀满疼痛
134.链条葫芦使用前应检查吊钩、()、传动装置及刹车装置是否良好。 A.
A.声呐利用次声波探测鱼群 B.汽车导航仪利用电磁波导航 C.验钞机利用荧光
标准制定()阶段的主要任务,是对新工作项目建议的必要性和可行性进行充分论证、
Ⅱ期霍奇金淋巴瘤的病变范围为A.限于一组淋巴结 B.病变限于膈的一侧 C.膈
下列有关EAR的表述说法错误的是()。A.EAR即有效年利率 B.EAR
属于渗透性泻药的是。A.甘油 B.聚乙二醇4000 C.乳果糖 D.比沙可
2015年5月23日8时30分,该厂电炉车间电炉班在更换1号电炉炉体后,班长甲与
最新回复
(
0
)