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。根据文章第一段中“…it’s also because U.S. government agencies have started to promote ‘team science’.”可知论文数量的增加与team science有关。故答案为C。

　　2． A。根据文章第二段中“But those long lists give rise to more serious questions when something goes wrong with the paper.”可知当文章出错的时候，很难找出由谁负责。故答案为A。

　　3． B。根据文章第三段中“…as we get to university committee on appointments and promotions, which is where the authorship rubber really meets the road.”可知，当涉及作者的任命和晋升时，著作权是非常重要的。故答案为B。

　　4． A。根据最后一段中第二句和第三句的论述可知，多作者作品的职责是该整体来评判还是单独评判，取决于判断是根据作品本身还是作者做出来的。故答案为A。

　　5．D。本文刚开始指出现在出现好多作者共同执笔的现象以及这一现象带来的社会问题，最后提出了一些解决办法。纵观全文，只有选项D更全面的概括了文章。故答案为D。

　　试题推荐：

　　2012年在职工程硕士阅读强化练习及答案汇总

　　2012年在职GCT英语预测试题及答案汇总

　　特别推荐：登录考试大会员中心，体验更多免费模考试题 资讯订阅 名师问答　，助您快速通关！