2. 职称英语
  3. 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  60
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] One of the problems with multiple authorship is that it is hard to ______.
选项 A、allocate the responsibility if the paper goes wrong
B、decide on how much contribution each reviewer has made
C、assign the roles that the different authors are to play
D、correspond with the authors when the readers feel the need to
答案 A
解析 细节题。这两句大意是：但是，当作品出错时，这长长的名单就会导致更严重的问题。如果出现研究错误，那么应该承担责任的是共同的几个作者，还是累及所有作者呢?A项的意思与之相符。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/2983514.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)