admin 管理员组文章数量: 1184232
2024年3月26日发(作者：在数组中添加数组)
中国科学院大学研究生学术英语读写教程课文翻译
Jan Hendrik Schon's success seemed too good to be true, and it was. In only
four years as aphysicist at Bell Laboratories, Schon,32, had co-authored 90
scientific papers—one every16 days—detailing new discoveries in
superconductivity，lasers，nanotechnology andquantum physics. This output
astonished his colleagues, and made them suspicious. Whenone co-worker
noticed that the same table of data appeared in two separate papers—whichalso
happened to appear in the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world,
Scienceand Nature-the jig was up. In October 2002, a Bell Labs investigation found
that Schon hadfalsified and fabricated data. His career as a scientist was finished.
lf it sounds a lot like the fall of Hwang Woo Suk—the South Korean researcher
whofabricated his evidence about cloning human cells—it is. Scientific
scandals,which are asold as science itself, tend to follow similar patterns of hubris
and ards,colleagues wring their hands and wonder how such
malfeasance can be avoided in thefuture. But it never is e is built on
the honor system; the method ofpeer-review, in which manuscripts are evaluated
by experts in the field，is not meant tocatch cheats. In recent years， of course,the
pressure on scientists to publish in the topjournals has increased, making the
journals that much more crucial to career success. Thequestions raised anew by
Hwang's fall are whether Nature and Science have become toopowerful as arbiters
of what science reaches the public, and whether the journals are up totheir task as
gatekeepers.
Each scientific specialty has its own set of journals. Physicists have Physical
ReviewLetters，cell biologists have Cell,neuroscientists have Neuron, and so
e andNature，though，are the only two major journals that cover the
gamut of scientificdisciplines,from meteorology and zoology to quantum physics
and a result,journalists look to them each week for the cream of the
crop of new science papers. Andscientists look to the journals in part to reach
journalists. Why do they care?Competitionfor grants has gotten so fierce that
scientists have sought popular renown to gain an edgeover their rivals. Publication
in specialized journals will win the accolades of academicsand satisfy the
publish-or-perish imperative, but Science and Nature come with the added
bonus of potentially getting your paper written up in The New York Times and
otherpublications.
Scientists are also trying to reach other scientists through Science and Nature,
not just line between popular and professional notoriety is not
distinct. Scientists tendto pay more attention to the Big Two than to other journals.
When more scientists knowabout a particular paper, they're more apt to cite it in
their own papers. Being oft-cited willincrease a scientist's "Impact Factor", a
measure of how often papers are cited by g agencies use the Impact
Factor as a rough measure of the influence of scientiststhey're considering
e Nature and Science papers have more visibility, thenumber of
submissions is growing, say the editors. Nature now gets 10,000 manuscripts ayear，
and that figure is rising, says editor-in-chief Phiip Campbell via email. "This
partlyreflects the increase in scientific activity around the world," he says. "It also
no doubtreflects the increasing and sometimes excessive emphasis amongst
funding agencies andgovernments on publication measures, such as the typical
rates of citation of journals."
Whatever the reasons, the whims of the editors at Science and Nature loom
large for manyscientists. When either magazine is considering a paper for
publication, the authors are toldnot to speak to the press lest they want to risk
rejection."Every scientists hates them andloves them," says a prominent scientist
who would not speak for attribution for fear ofoffending the editors. "We hate
them because it's so political to get an article in y I'm astonished at
some of the things they accept，and some of the things theyreject."
Whether the clamor to appear in these journals has any bearing on their ability
to catchfraud is another matter. The fact is,fraud is terrifically hard to er
the processScience used to evaluate Hwang's 2005 article. Science editors
recognized the manuscript'simport almost as soon as it part of the
standard procedure, they sent it to twomembers of its Board of Reviewing Editors，
who recommended that it go out for peerreview (about 30 percent of manuscripts
pass this test). This recommendation was made
版权声明：本文标题：中国科学院大学研究生学术英语读写教程课文翻译 内容由网友自发贡献，该文观点仅代表作者本人， 转载请联系作者并注明出处：http://www.roclinux.cn/p/1711412774a592779.html， 本站仅提供信息存储空间服务，不拥有所有权，不承担相关法律责任。如发现本站有涉嫌抄袭侵权/违法违规的内容，一经查实，本站将立刻删除。
发表评论