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  53
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ultimate post-publication punishment; retraction, the official declaration that a paper is so flawed that it must be withdrawn from the literature.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 Other frustrations include obscure retraction notices that don’t explain why a paper has been withdrawn, aj tendency for authors to keep citing retracted papers long after they’ve been red-flagged and the fact that many scientists hear ’ retraction’ and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.
The present retraction system can be generally described as "______".
选项 A、lacking transparency and consistency
B、being responsive and responsible
C、being unfair and unjust to obscure authors
D、being guided clearly and improving greatly
答案A
解析 第二段末指出撤回体制中存在的问题日益凸显。第三段具体说明问题：全球出版伦理委员会虽出台了“撤回指南”，但事实依然是：编辑们不会按照指南主动将文章撤回，而是往往被迫实施撤回；撤回通告含糊不清、对被撤原因不做说明，已撤回的文章继续被引用，研究者因害怕被认做学术不端而连无心之过都不敢承认。可见，当前撤回体制存在“缺乏一致性和透明性”的问题，[A]选项正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/n6O4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)