考研英語(yǔ)真題閱讀理解解析翻譯
考研英語(yǔ)真題閱讀理解解析翻譯
由于閱讀在考研英語(yǔ)試卷中所占的分值最高，所以在考研英語(yǔ)圈子里一向有得閱讀者得天下一說(shuō)。下面就是學(xué)習(xí)啦小編給大家整理的考研英語(yǔ)真題閱讀理解解析翻譯，希望對(duì)你有用!
考研英語(yǔ)閱讀原文
The journal Science is adding an extra round of statistical checks to its peer-review process, editor-in-chief Marcia McNutt announced today.
The policy follows similar efforts from other journals, after widespread concern that basic mistakes in data analysis are contributing to the irreproducibility of many published research findings.
"Readers must have confidence in the conclusions published in our journal," writes McNutt in an editorial.
Working with the American Statistical Association, the journal has appointed seven experts to a statistics board of reviewing editors(SBoRE).
Manuscript will be flagged up for additional scrutiny by the journal's internal editors, or by its existing Board of Reviewing Editors or by outside peer reviewers.
The SBoRE panel will then find external statisticians to review these manuscripts.
Asked whether any particular papers had impelled the change, McNutt said:
"The creation of the 'statistics board' was motivated by concerns broadly with the application of statistics and data analysis in scientific research and is part of Science's overall drive to increase reproducibility in the research we publish."
Giovanni Parmigiani, a biostatistician at the Harvard School of Public Health, a member of the SBoRE group.
He says he expects the board to "play primarily an advisory role."
He agreed to join because he "found the foresight behind the establishment of the SBoRE to be novel, unique and likely to have a lasting impact.
This impact will not only be through the publications in Science itself, but hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that may want to model their approach after Science."
John Ioannidis, a physician who studies research methodology, says that the policy is "a most welcome step forward" and "long overdue."
"Most journals are weak in statistical review, and this damages the quality of what they publish.
I think that, for the majority of scientific papers nowadays, statistical review is more essential than expert review," he says.
But he noted that biomedical journals such as Annals of Internal Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet pay strong attention to statistical review.
Professional scientists are expected to know how to analyze data, but statistical errors are alarmingly common in published research, according to David Vaux, a cell biologist.
Researchers should improve their standards, he wrote in 2012, but journals should also take a tougher line, "engaging reviewers who are statistically literate and editors who can verify the process".
Vaux says that Science's idea to pass some papers to statisticians "has some merit,
but a weakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify 'the papers that need scrutiny' in the first place".
考研英語(yǔ)閱讀翻譯
總主編馬西婭·麥克娜特今天宣布：《科學(xué)》雜志在同行評(píng)閱之外又增加一輪數(shù)據(jù)審查。
數(shù)據(jù)分析中出現(xiàn)的基本錯(cuò)誤致使許多出版的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)不可再生得到廣泛關(guān)注后，《科學(xué)》也隨即效仿了其他雜志的做法。
“一定要讓讀者對(duì)我們出版的研究結(jié)論有信心，”麥克娜特在一篇專欄中寫(xiě)道。
該雜志與美國(guó)統(tǒng)計(jì)協(xié)會(huì)一道，任命七名專家成立了一個(gè)數(shù)據(jù)校對(duì)編輯委員會(huì)。
原稿將由雜志內(nèi)部編輯，或已經(jīng)成立的數(shù)據(jù)校對(duì)編輯委員會(huì)委員或外部同行校對(duì)員標(biāo)注以供進(jìn)一步的審查。
屆時(shí)該委員會(huì)成員將物色外部統(tǒng)計(jì)專家來(lái)審查這些原稿。
在被問(wèn)及是否已有特殊的論文促成了這樣的改變時(shí)，麥克娜特說(shuō):
“對(duì)科學(xué)研究領(lǐng)域的統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)應(yīng)用和數(shù)據(jù)分析的廣泛關(guān)注，促使了‘數(shù)據(jù)校對(duì)編輯委員會(huì)的成立’，該委員會(huì)成立也是全面提高我們出版的研究可再生性努力的一部分。”
喬瓦尼·帕爾米賈尼是哈佛大學(xué)公共衛(wèi)生學(xué)院的生物統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)家、該委員會(huì)的成員。
他說(shuō)他期望該委員會(huì)“能扮演最基本的顧問(wèn)角色”。
他同意加入是因?yàn)?ldquo;他發(fā)現(xiàn)建立該委員會(huì)的眼光很新穎、獨(dú)特，還可能會(huì)有持久的影響力。”
它影響到的不僅是《科學(xué)》雜志本身，而且可能影響到更多想要在《科學(xué)》雜志之后成為行業(yè)模范的出版社。
約翰·伊奧尼迪斯，一名專攻研究方法論的物理學(xué)家，稱這一政策是“最受歡迎的進(jìn)步”卻又“姍姍來(lái)遲。”
“數(shù)據(jù)審查是大多數(shù)雜志的薄弱環(huán)節(jié)，而這會(huì)損害出版物的質(zhì)量。
我認(rèn)為，對(duì)于當(dāng)今大多數(shù)的科學(xué)論文來(lái)說(shuō)，數(shù)據(jù)審查比專家審查更為重要，”他說(shuō)道。
他曾指出，生物醫(yī)學(xué)雜志如《內(nèi)科醫(yī)學(xué)年鑒》《美國(guó)醫(yī)學(xué)會(huì)雜志》和《柳葉刀》都非常注重?cái)?shù)據(jù)審查。
細(xì)胞生物學(xué)家大衛(wèi)·沃克斯稱：“人們認(rèn)為職業(yè)科學(xué)家應(yīng)該懂得如何進(jìn)行數(shù)據(jù)分析，但是已出版的研究中的數(shù)據(jù)錯(cuò)誤卻極其普遍。”
他2012年在《自然》雜志中寫(xiě)到，研究者應(yīng)提高他們的專業(yè)水準(zhǔn)，而雜志更要不甘示弱，“聘用通曉統(tǒng)計(jì)的校對(duì)員和能核實(shí)數(shù)據(jù)的編輯”。
沃克斯表示，《科學(xué)》雜志將論文交給統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)家審查的想法有其可取之處，
但它的不足是依賴委員會(huì)的審查編輯先識(shí)別出‘需要審查的論文’。
考研英語(yǔ)閱讀詞語(yǔ)解析
additional[ə'diʃənl]adj. 附加的，另外的
overdue['əuvə'dju:]adj. 過(guò)期的，未兌的，遲到的
overall[əuvə'rɔ:l]adj. 全部的，全體的，一切在內(nèi)的
widespread['waidspred]adj. 分布(或散布)廣的，普遍的
manuscript['mænjuskript]adj. 手抄的
n. 手稿，原稿聯(lián)想記憶
verify['verifai]vt. 查證，核實(shí)
methodology[.meθə'dɔlədʒi]n. 一套方法，方法學(xué)
internal[in'tə:nəl]adj. 國(guó)內(nèi)的，內(nèi)在的，身體內(nèi)部的
association[ə.səusi'eiʃən]n. 聯(lián)合，結(jié)合，交往，協(xié)會(huì)，社團(tuán)，聯(lián)想
cell[sel]n. 細(xì)胞，電池，小組，小房間，單人牢房，(蜂房的)巢室
猜你喜歡：