2. 考研
  3. This week, some 27,000 freshly published research articles will pour into the Web of Science, a vast online database of scientif

This week, some 27,000 freshly published research articles will pour into the Web of Science, a vast online database of scientif

admin2013-09-16  105
问题     This week, some 27,000 freshly published research articles will pour into the Web of Science, a vast online database of scientific publications. Almost all of these papers will stay there forever, a fixed contribution to the research literature. But maybe five or six will one day receive science’s ultimate post-publication punishment; retraction, the official declaration that a paper is so flawed that it must be withdrawn from the literature. It is reassuring that retractions are so rare, for behind at least half of them lies some shocking tale of scientific misconduct —plagiarism, altered images or faked data—and the other half are admissions of embarrassing mistakes. But retraction notices are increasing rapidly.
    Perhaps surprisingly, scientists and editors broadly welcome the trend. "I don’t think there’s any doubt that we’re detecting more fraud, and that systems are more responsive to misconduct. It’s become more acceptable for journals to step in," says Nicholas Steneck, a research ethicist at the University of Michigan. But as retractions become more commonplace, stresses that have always existed in the system are starting to show more vividly.
    When the Committee on Publication Ethics(COPE)surveyed editors’ attitudes to retraction two years ago, it found huge differences in policies and practices between journals. That survey led to retraction guidelines that COPE published in 2009. But it’s still the case that editors often have to be pushed to retract. Other frustrations include obscure retraction notices that don’t explain why a paper has been withdrawn, aj tendency for authors to keep citing retracted papers long after they’ve been red-flagged and the fact that many scientists hear ’ retraction’ and immediately think ’misconduct’ a stigma that may keep researchers from coming forward to admit honest errors.
    Perfection may be too much to expect from any system that has to deal with human error in all its messiness. But as more retractions hit the headlines, some researchers are calling for ways to improve their handling. Suggested reforms include better systems for linking papers to their retraction notices, more responsibility on the part of journal editors and, most of all, greater clarity about mistakes in research.
    The reasons behind the rise in retractions are still unclear. I don’t think that there is suddenly a boom in the production of fraudulent or erroneous work. Instead, the growth in retractions has come from an increased awareness of research misconduct. That’s thanks in part to the setting up of regulatory bodies. These ensure greater accountability for the research institutions, which, along with researchers, are responsible for detecting mistakes.
    The growth also owes a lot to the emergence of software for easily detecting plagiarism and image manipulation, combined with the greater number of readers that the Internet brings to research papers. In the future, wider use of such software could cause the rate of retraction notices to dip as fast as it increased, simply because more of the problematic papers will be screened out before they reach publication. On the other hand, editors’ newfound comfort with talking about retraction may lead to notices coming at an even greater rate.
It can be concluded that there is recently a boom in______.
选项 A、production of erroneous research
B、emergence of fraudulent work
C、malpractice of scientific editing
D、awareness of research accountability
答案D
解析 由第四、五段可知，研究者们开始呼吁改善“撤回”处理；许多监管机构开始成立，以促使研究机构对自己的成果承担更多责任。第六段则说明，检测剽窃的处理软件正在出现。可见，人们就“研究可靠性”的意识上涨，[D]选项正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/66O4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)