The average number of authors on scientific papers is sky-rocketing. That’s partly because labs are bigger, problems are more complicated, and more different subspecialties are needed. But it’s also because U.S. government agencies 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 problems for journals and for the institutions in which these authors work. For the journals, long lists of authors are hard to deal with in themselves. But those long lists give rise to more serious questions when something goes wrong with the paper. If there is research misconduct, how should the liability be allocated among the authors? 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 matters. I have watched committees attempting to decode sequences of names, agonize over whether a much-cited paper was really 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.

　　1. According to the passage, there is a tendency that scientific papers________.

　　A.are getting more complicated

　　B.are dealing with bigger problems

　　C.are more of a product of team work

　　D.are focusing more on natural than on social sciences

　　2. One of the problems with multiple authorship is that it is hard_______.

　　A.to allocate the responsibility if the paper goes wrong

　　B.to decide on how much contribution each reviewer has made

　　C.to assign the roles that the different authors are to play

　　D.to correspond with the authors when the readers feel the need to

　　3. According to the passage, authorship is important when .

　　A.practical or impractical suggestions of the authors are considered

　　B.appointments and promotions of the authors are involved

　　C.evaluators need to review the publication of the authors

　　D.the publication of the authors has become much-cited

　　4. According to the passage, whether multiple authors of a paper should be taken collectively or individually depends on_______.

　　A.whether judgments are made about the paper or its authors

　　B.whether it is the credit or the blame that the authors need to share

　　C.how many authors are involved in the paper

　　D.where the paper has been published

　　5. The best title for the passage can be_______.

　　A.Writing Scientific Papers: Publish or Perish

　　B.Collaboration and Responsibility in Writing Scientific Papers

　　C.Advantages and Disadvantages of Team Science

　　D.Multiple Authors, Multiple Problems

　　——————————————————————————————————————————————

　　答案解析：

　　1. C。根據(jù)文章第一段中“…it’s also because U.S. government agencies have started to promote ‘team science’.”可知論文數(shù)量的增加與team science有關(guān)。故答案為C。

　　2. A。根據(jù)文章第二段中“But those long lists give rise to more serious questions when something goes wrong with the paper.”可知當(dāng)文章出錯(cuò)的時(shí)候，很難找出由誰負(fù)責(zé)。故答案為A。

　　3. B。根據(jù)文章第三段中“…as we get to university committee on appointments and promotions, which is where the authorship rubber really meets the road.”可知，當(dāng)涉及作者的任命和晉升時(shí)，著作權(quán)是非常重要的。故答案為B。

　　4. A。根據(jù)最后一段中第二句和第三句的論述可知，多作者作品的職責(zé)是該整體來評(píng)判還是單獨(dú)評(píng)判，取決于判斷是根據(jù)作品本身還是作者做出來的。故答案為A。

　　5.D。本文剛開始指出現(xiàn)在出現(xiàn)好多作者共同執(zhí)筆的現(xiàn)象以及這一現(xiàn)象帶來的社會(huì)問題，最后提出了一些解決辦法�？v觀全文，只有選項(xiàng)D更全面的概括了文章。故答案為D。

    聯(lián)考須知：2011在職聯(lián)考科目 考試時(shí)間 ♦考場(chǎng)守則及違規(guī)處理  ♦資格審查  ♦錄取工作

    復(fù)習(xí)指導(dǎo)：在職聯(lián)考備考專題 ♦在職聯(lián)考?xì)v年真題  ♦如何利用真題  ♦ 如何更有效備考

    考試大綱：聯(lián)考英語大綱解析 ♦會(huì)計(jì)綜合大綱 ♦ GCT數(shù)學(xué)大綱 ♦法碩考試大綱 ♦更多