Thousands of papers are submitted every

练习题库2022-08-02  19

问题 Thousands of papers are submitted every month to the platforms arXiv and bioRxiv,which make manuscripts available before they have been peer reviewed and accepted by a journal.Scientists applaud preprints because they enable researchers to claim priority and make their findings available more quickly,unshackled from sluggish and tyrannical journals.This might make sense within the scientific community,but this method of publication holds substantial risks for the broadcr community-risks that are not being given proper consideration by the champions of preprint.Weak work that hasn't been reviewed could get overblown in the media.Conversely,better work could be ignored.Many people still learn about science the same way they learn about Syria or the World Cup:through news sites,television and radio.The bulk of research reported through these channels is peer reviewed.A few days before a paper is published,the science journal will issue a restricted press release to qualified journalists under an agreement that no one will report on the paper until a designated time.The system has its flaws,but it does give reporters time to assess the research and gather expert reaction.Contrast this with preprints.As soon as research is in the public domain,there is nothing to stop a journalist writing about it,and rushing to be the first to do so.Imagine early findings that seem to show that climate change is natural or that a common vaccine is unsafe.Preprints on subjects such as those could,if they become a story that goes viral,end up misleading millions,whether or not that was the intention of the authors.Another risk is the inverse-and this one could matter more to some researchers.Under the preprint system,one daring journalist searching through the servers can break a story;by the time other reporters have noticed,it's old news,and they can't persuade their editors to publish.There have been cases in which a preprint that garnered news stories got a second wave of coverage when it was published in a journal.But generally,the rule is'it has to be new to be news'.It is not enough to shrug and blame journalists,and it is unhelpful to dismiss those journalists who can accurately convey complex science to a mass audience.Journalists do include appropriate warnings or even decide not to run a story when conclusions are uncertain,but that happens only because they have been given enough time and breathing space to assess it.If the scientific community isn't careful,preprints coulcl take that resource away.How can we have preprints and support good journalism?Should scientific societies or preprint advocates develop guidelines for what should and should not be posted as a preprint?Should all preprints be emblazoned with a warning aimed at journalists that work has not been peer reviewed'?Preprints could bring great prizes for science.But these questions must be brought up now,so that public understanding is not damaged as preprints flourish.One problem with the preprint system is thatA.scientists rend to sacrifice accuracy in the rush to publish.B.journalists may report on preprints against the authors'will.C.news media may dismiss formal publications as old news.D.journals may refuse to consider preprinted papers.

选项 A.scientists rend to sacrifice accuracy in the rush to publish.
B.journalists may report on preprints against the authors'will.
C.news media may dismiss formal publications as old news.
D.journals may refuse to consider preprinted papers.

答案 C

解析 第四、五段指出预印本的两项风险(Preprints.…could.…end up.…Another risk.…)。第五段先指出“预印系统下,科研成果经一家媒体报道后,就会视作旧闻,难获再次报道”,随后以“让步一转折”进一步明确”虽有预印本正式发表后又掀起报道热潮的情况,但通常‘新闻必须是新的”’,由此可知“正式出版的论文很可能被媒体视作旧闻而不予报道”,C.正确。[解题技巧]A.由第四段②句“新闻记者行为”与第四段③句“部分科学家行为:发布劣质研究”杂糅而来,但文中并未提到“科学家发布劣质研究的原因是‘为求速度忽视质量”’。B.源自第四段④句whether or not that was the intention of the authors,但文中指“‘劣质研究广泛传播、误导大众’的结果是必然的,与作者本意无关”,而非“‘。记者报道研究成果’的行为违背作者本意”。D.将第五段中所述“拒绝曾发布过预印本的论文”的行为主体由“新闻媒体”偷换为“学术期刊”。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/xueli/2697941.html

最新回复(0)