同等学力英语每日练习：2017年1月9日
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 maybe 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.
51. 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
52. 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
53. 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
54. 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
55. 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
译文：
撰写科学论文的平均人数在急剧增长。一部分原因是因为实验室的规模扩大，问题更加复杂，并且需要更多不同的附属专业。这也是因为美国政府机构开始提倡“团队科学”的缘故。“二战”以后，随着物理学的发展，联邦基金会建造了许多昂贵的国有设施，这些给人们造成了一种表面现象，在这种表面现象之下，协作自然可以明确化。
然而，多重作者署名——不管在其他方面可能有多么优秀——都给这些作者所在的杂志和机构造成了问题。对于杂志来说，长长的作者名单让他们很难处理。但是，当作品出错时，这长长的名单就会导致更严重的问题。如果出现研究错误，那么该如何区分这些作者应该承担什么样的责任呢？如果作品中的一部分而不是其他部分出现了真正的错误，那么评估人员应该如何对他或她作出评论呢？
有关这个话题一直存在争论，人们提出了各种各样实际的和不切实际的建议。其中之一就是：每个作者都应该提供一份关于作者本人对作品所做出的特殊贡献的说明，杂志随后应该公开发表该声明。但是，一旦到了大学委员会，涉及任命与提拔时，作者署名就会变得非常重要，这是关于这个问题的一个相反的观点，也许也是一个解决方案。一生中一半的时间卷入这种事情，使我明白作者的署名关系重大。我曾经看到大学委员会试图解释名字的顺序，对一篇过多引用的论文到底是投稿者自己完成的还是几人合作完成的这种事情感到极度痛苦，于是便退回推荐，询问更多有关责任区分的特征。
这类问题改变了这种争论，通过要求作者明确自己的任务帮助解决了这个问题。毕竟，如果有关个体的质量判断打算建立在一个人贡献的基础上，那么评委们就可以更好地了解他们都做了什么。但是，如果整个作品的正确性出了问题，那么不管是作为对其行为提出异议还是作为对其所在领域产生的影响的评估，团队就是团队，其成员应该分享荣誉，分担耻辱。
答案解析
51.【正确答案】C
【考点类型】细节判断
【解析过程】根据文章，有一种趋势是科学论文（ ）。
A. 变得越来越复杂
B. 正在处理更大的问题
C. 更多的是个团队的工作
D. 相比社会科学，更加关注自然科学
线索：文章的第1段和本文讨论的重点来看，表明C为正确答案。A和B错在对原文信息的错误联想，原文是说“That’s partly because labs are bigger，problems are more complicated”而不是说“科学论文越来越复杂或处理更大的问题”，虽说都是原文的信息，但把它们错误连接是肯定不对的。
【考点提示】细节判断题考点就是考察同学们的精读能力，所以最好在大家做该题的时候，要注意和原文的信息对比审查，然后得出正确答案。
52.【正确答案】A
【考点类型】细节判断
【解析过程】多重署名权的一个问题是它很难（ ）
A. 如果论文有问题如何去明确责任
B. 去决定每一个评论家已经作出多少贡献
C. 分配作者扮演的不同的角色
D. 当读者感觉需要的时候和作者交流
线索：文章的第2段提到“But those long lists give rise to more serious questions when something goes wrong with the paper”表明A为正确答案。B选项是不对的，原文中没有提到这一点。
【考点提示】阅读文章有一个关键的前提，就是词汇量的多少。比如本篇文章的结构不是很复杂，但是文章中提到一些比较生僻的词汇不容易理解，这样建议同学们要在平时多背单词，多掌握一些背词的方法，比如词根词缀记忆法等。
53.【正确答案】B
【考点类型】细节判断
【解析过程】根据文章，当（ ），署名是非常重要的。
A. 作者可行或不可行的建议被考虑时
B. 涉及作者的任命或提拔的时候
C. 评审人员需要评价作者的出版物时
D. 作者的出版物被经常引用的时候
线索：文章的第3段提到“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.”表明B为正确答案。
【考点提示】所问非所答指的是作者从文章中选择出一些内容，这些内容一般是出现在正确答案的附近，然后把这些内容作为混淆选项出现，这些内容是比较具有迷惑性的，同学们一不小心，就容易选错。
54.【正确答案】A
【考点类型】细节判断
【解析过程】根据文章，一篇论文的署名应该只有一个作者，取决于（ ）。
A. 判断是对论文本身还是对作者做出的
B. 作者需要分享的是荣誉还是责备
C. 论文会涉及多少作者
D. 论文会在哪里出版
线索：文章的第四段提到“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....”表明A为正确答案。B选项是典型的错误，因为它是在文章的最后一段的最后一句出现，给同学们的印象是最深的，所以一不小心就容易选择错误。作者的署名是放到一起还是独立出现，不可能是看作者需要分担的是荣誉还是责备来决定。
【考点提示】出题老师一般有一种设计混淆选项的方法，就是利用文章的最后一句话设计陷阱，给大家一个错觉，选择它就是正确答案。所以同学们以后在做文章的时候，判断选项的正误，选项中如果有文章的最后一句话照抄，可以先把该选项排除出去。
55. 【正确答案】D
【考点类型】主旨判断
【解析过程】这篇文章的最好的标题是（ ）。
A. 描写科学论文：出版还是消亡
B. 描写科学论文的合作和责任
C. 团队科学的优势和不足
D. 多重作者，多重问题
线索：文章整体是表达作者署名混乱引发的问题，所以选项D是最合适的答案。B选项的范围过于宽泛了。C选项又只是文章提到的一个细节，也不正确。
