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
2025-01-19
17
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, nanotechnology 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 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 oft-cited 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 word "fabricated" underlined in Paragraph 1 is closest in meaning to________.
选项
A、fake
B、compile
C、draw up
D、analyze
答案
A
解析
第1段倒数第3句的fabricated意为“伪造”,因此A项fake“假的”词义最为接近。B项“编译的,编写的”、C项“起草的,草拟的”、D项“分析”均不符合文意,因此都排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3919092.html
相关试题推荐
Ifbeingcardedoutsuccessfully,theplanwillcompletelychangethetrafficco
Heseemedtobe________offinishingthistaskbyhimself.A、incapableB、unableC、
Theamazingsuccessofmanasa【C1】________istheresultoftheevolutionary
Theamazingsuccessofmanasa【C1】________istheresultoftheevolutionary
Theamazingsuccessofmanasa【C1】________istheresultoftheevolutionary
Theamazingsuccessofmanasa【C1】________istheresultoftheevolutionary
Theamazingsuccessofmanasa【C1】________istheresultoftheevolutionary
Theamazingsuccessofmanasa【C1】________istheresultoftheevolutionary
Theamazingsuccessofmanasa【C1】________istheresultoftheevolutionary
Theamazingsuccessofmanasa【C1】________istheresultoftheevolutionary
随机试题
MoviesarethemostpopularformofentertainmentformillionsofAmericans
Thecash-for-clunkersprogramturnedouttobeaboonforAsianautomakersa
以下关于SWOT分析方法的说法中,不正确的是( )。A.O代表机遇 B.W代
晚期肝硬化最严重的并发症是A.肝性脑病 B.原发性肝癌 C.上消化道出血
下列关于基金销售适用性实施保障的说法错误的是()。A.基金销售机构总部应当
下列各项中,不符合内部牵制的要求的是()。A、出纳人员管票据 B、出纳人员
百合固金汤的君药是A.地黄、熟地黄B.百合、麦冬C.地黄、麦冬D.玄参、麦冬E.
Ⅲ型高脂蛋白血症载脂蛋白变化正确的是A.CⅡ↓,CⅢ十E↑↑B.CⅡ↑,CⅢ↓E
桥本甲状腺炎是A.自身免疫性疾病B.细菌感染性疾病C.病毒感染性疾病D.碘缺乏性
银行承兑汇票的承兑银行,应当按照票面金额向出票人收取()的手续费。A:千分之一
最新回复
(
0
)