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
35
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:https://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
Optimismcanhelpyoutobehappier,healthierandmoresuccessful.Pessimis
与多层建筑地震作用有关的因素,下列哪项正确且全面?()Ⅰ.抗震设防类别
在建筑空间围透关系的处理上,下列陈述中哪一个是不确切的?()A.中国传统住宅
施工单位应严格按照专项施工方案组织施工。高大模板支撑系统搭设、拆除及混凝土浇筑过
盐酸普鲁卡因可与NaN02-HCI液反应,再与碱性p-萘酚偶合成猩红色染料,是因
A.2~3天 B.3~7天 C.7~10天 D.10~14天 E.2~3
A.食物、空气、水 B.生活稳定、没有焦虑和恐惧 C.渴望名誉和声望 D.
治疗腹痛、里急后重、便下脓血,宜选用的药物是A.大青叶 B.鱼腥草 C.白鲜
压缩机空负荷试运行后,做法错误的是( )。A.停机后立刻打开曲轴箱检查 B.排
道路工程中,软土具有()等特点。A、天然含水量高、透水性差、孔隙比大 B、天然
最新回复
(
0
)