Jan Hendrik Schon’s success seemed too good to be true, and it was. In only

游客2025-04-26 2

问题 Jan Hendrik Schon’s success seemed too good to be true, and it was. In only four years as a physicist at Bell Laboratories, Schon, 32, had co-authored 90 scientific papers—one every 16 days—detailing new discoveries in superconductivity, lasers, nano-technology and quantum physics. This output astonished his colleagues, and made them suspicious. When one co-worker noticed that the same table of data appeared in two separate papers—which also happened to appear in the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world, Science and Nature—the jig was up. In October 2002, a Bell Labs investigation found that Schon had falsified and fabricated data. His career as a scientist was finished. Scientific scandals, which are as old as science itself, tend to follow similar patterns of presumption and due reward.
In recent years, of course, the pressure on scientists to publish in the top journals has increased, making the journals much more crucial to career success. The questions are whether Nature and Science have become too powerful as arbiters of what science reaches to the public, and whether the journals are up to their task as gatekeepers.
Each scientific specialty has its own set of journals. Physicists have Physical Review Letters, neuroscientists have Neuron, and so forth. Science and Nature, though, are the only two major journals that cover the gamut of scientific disciplines, from meteorology and zoology to quantum physics and chemistry. As a result, journalists look to them each week for the cream of the crop of new science papers. And scientists look to the journals in part to reach journalists. Why do they care? Competition for grants has gotten so fierce that scientists have sought popular renown to gain an edge over their rivals. Publication in specialized journals will win the acclaims from academics and 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 other publications.
Scientists tend to pay more attention to the big two than to other journals. When more scientists know about a particular paper, they’re more apt to cite it in their own papers. Being oftcited will increase a scientist’s "Impact Factor", a measure of how often papers are cited by peers. Funding agencies use the "Impact Factor" as a rough measure of the influence of scientists they’re considering supporting. [br] The achievements of Jan Hendrik Schon turned out to be______.

选项 A、surprising
B、inconceivable
C、praiseworthy
D、fraudulent

答案 D

解析推理题。此题解题点在第一段的“In October 2002，a Bell Labs investigation found that Schon had falsified and fabricated data”。A项意为“令人惊讶的”，B项意为“不可思议的”，C项意为“值得表扬的”，D项意为是“欺诈的，不诚实的”。只有D项与falsified and fabricated同义，因此正确答案是D项。

转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/4054707.html

相关试题推荐

随机试题

最新回复(0)

Jan Hendrik Schon’s success seemed too good to be true, and it was. In only

Whatdotheextraordinarilysuccessfulcompanieshaveincommon?To

Whatdotheextraordinarilysuccessfulcompanieshaveincommon?To

Whatdotheextraordinarilysuccessfulcompanieshaveincommon?To

Astrongsupportfromthelocalauthorityis______tothesuccessoftheprojec