Thousands of papers are submitted every month to the platforms arXiv and bioRxiv,which make manuscripts available before they have been peer reviewed and accepted by a journal.Scientists applaud preprints because they enable researchers to claim priority and make their findings available more quickly,unshackled from sluggish and tyrannical journals.This might make sense within the scientific community,but this method of publication holds substantial risks for the broadcr community-risks that are not being given proper consideration by the champions of preprint.Weak work that hasn't been reviewed could get overblown in the media.Conversely,better work could be ignored.Many people still learn about science the same way they learn about Syria or the World Cup:through news sites,television and radio.The bulk of research reported through these channels is peer reviewed.A few days before a paper is published,the science journal will issue a restricted press release to qualified journalists under an agreement that no one will report on the paper until a designated time.The system has its flaws,but it does give reporters time to assess the research and gather expert reaction.Contrast this with preprints.As soon as research is in the public domain,there is nothing to stop a journalist writing about it,and rushing to be the first to do so.Imagine early findings that seem to show that climate change is natural or that a common vaccine is unsafe.Preprints on subjects such as those could,if they become a story that goes viral,end up misleading millions,whether or not that was the intention of the authors.Another risk is the inverse-and this one could matter more to some researchers.Under the preprint system,one daring journalist searching through the servers can break a story;by the time other reporters have noticed,it's old news,and they can't persuade their editors to publish.There have been cases in which a preprint that garnered news stories got a second wave of coverage when it was published in a journal.But generally,the rule is'it has to be new to be news'.It is not enough to shrug and blame journalists,and it is unhelpful to dismiss those journalists who can accurately convey complex science to a mass audience.Journalists do include appropriate warnings or even decide not to run a story when conclusions are uncertain,but that happens only because they have been given enough time and breathing space to assess it.If the scientific community isn't careful,preprints coulcl take that resource away.How can we have preprints and support good journalism?Should scientific societies or preprint advocates develop guidelines for what should and should not be posted as a preprint?Should all preprints be emblazoned with a warning aimed at journalists that work has not been peer reviewed'?Preprints could bring great prizes for science.But these questions must be brought up now,so that public understanding is not damaged as preprints flourish.The author argues in Paragraph 6 that journalistsA.are mainly to blame for spreading bad science.B.can help the audience recognize faulty research.C.should be given more time to evaluate research.D.have to respect the uncertainty inherent in science.
Thousands of papers are submitted every month to the platforms arXiv and bioRxiv,which make manuscripts available before they have been peer reviewed and accepted by a journal.Scientists applaud preprints because they enable researchers to claim priority and make their findings available more quickly,unshackled from sluggish and tyrannical journals.This might make sense within the scientific community,but this method of publication holds substantial risks for the broadcr community-risks that are not being given proper consideration by the champions of preprint.Weak work that hasn't been reviewed could get overblown in the media.Conversely,better work could be ignored.Many people still learn about science the same way they learn about Syria or the World Cup:through news sites,television and radio.The bulk of research reported through these channels is peer reviewed.A few days before a paper is published,the science journal will issue a restricted press release to qualified journalists under an agreement that no one will report on the paper until a designated time.The system has its flaws,but it does give reporters time to assess the research and gather expert reaction.Contrast this with preprints.As soon as research is in the public domain,there is nothing to stop a journalist writing about it,and rushing to be the first to do so.Imagine early findings that seem to show that climate change is natural or that a common vaccine is unsafe.Preprints on subjects such as those could,if they become a story that goes viral,end up misleading millions,whether or not that was the intention of the authors.Another risk is the inverse-and this one could matter more to some researchers.Under the preprint system,one daring journalist searching through the servers can break a story;by the time other reporters have noticed,it's old news,and they can't persuade their editors to publish.There have been cases in which a preprint that garnered news stories got a second wave of coverage when it was published in a journal.But generally,the rule is'it has to be new to be news'.It is not enough to shrug and blame journalists,and it is unhelpful to dismiss those journalists who can accurately convey complex science to a mass audience.Journalists do include appropriate warnings or even decide not to run a story when conclusions are uncertain,but that happens only because they have been given enough time and breathing space to assess it.If the scientific community isn't careful,preprints coulcl take that resource away.How can we have preprints and support good journalism?Should scientific societies or preprint advocates develop guidelines for what should and should not be posted as a preprint?Should all preprints be emblazoned with a warning aimed at journalists that work has not been peer reviewed'?Preprints could bring great prizes for science.But these questions must be brought up now,so that public understanding is not damaged as preprints flourish.
The author argues in Paragraph 6 that journalists
The author argues in Paragraph 6 that journalists
A.are mainly to blame for spreading bad science.
B.can help the audience recognize faulty research.
C.should be given more time to evaluate research.
D.have to respect the uncertainty inherent in science.
B.can help the audience recognize faulty research.
C.should be given more time to evaluate research.
D.have to respect the uncertainty inherent in science.
参考解析
解析：第六段先提出“指责、解雇记者于事无补”，随后指出“记者有权警告研究作者、甚至对劣质研究不予刊登，但唯有给他们足够时间、足够喘息空间去评估，这才会发生”，最后明确”科学界需小心避免预印本剥夺记者评估研究的时间”，可见，作者认为“预印系统下，记者未被给予足够时间评估研究，科学界应对此加以改善”，C.契合作者观点。[解题技巧]A.与第六段①句“指责、解雇记者无济于事”相悖。B.将第六段①句“记者能将复杂科学准确传达给读者”篡改为“记者可帮助读者辨识劣质研究”，且背离末句文意“当前预印系统下，记者没有时间甄辨研究优劣”。D.源自第六段②句uncertain，却于客观陈述“记者有权决定不刊登结论不确定的研究”中人为加入作者批驳态度“不确定性为科学固有，记者应加以尊重，不应拒绝刊登”。
相关考题：
Have you trained your employees in terms of the common knowledge of fire prevention?A. Yes. We have a routine training every month.B.Yes. We organized a fire drill every yearC.Not yet. But we will make it up soonD.No. We are expected to fulfill this plan to train employees in fire prevention
By the end of last month, three English songs() . A. have taughtB. have been taughtC. has taughtD. had been taught
单句理解听力原文：Credit card holders can charge purchases to their credit card accounts, and they receive monthly statements.(1)A．Credit card holders will state if they don't buy anything.B．Credit card holders will receive their statements from the bank every month.C．Credit card holders can charge purchases to their bank accounts.D．Credit card holders have to make purchases every month.
We have accepted your Order No.TR22.Please open the relative L／C,()here four weeks before the date of shipment. A、that should reachB、which should reachC、when it reachesD、which should arrive at
New ideas sometimes have to wait a long time ________ .() A、 before fully acceptedB、 before being fully acceptedC、 till are fully acceptedD、 until being fully accepted
Every year a flood of farmers arrive in shenzhen for the money——making jobs they Before leaving their hometowns.A.promisedB.were promisedC.have promisedD.have been promised
Text 3 If you're tired of swiping left and right to approve or reject the faces of other people,try something else:rating scientific papers.A web application inspired by the dating app Tinder lets you make snap judgments about preprints-papers published online before peer review-simply by swiping left,right,up,or down.Papr brands itself as"Tinder for preprints"and is almost as superficial as the matchmaker.For now,you only get to see abstracts,not the full papers,and you have to rate them in one of four categories:"exciting and probable,""exciting and questionable,""boring and probable,"or"boring and questionable."Papr co-creator Jeff Leek,a biostatistician at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,released an earlier version of Papr late last year but only started publicizing the app on social media earlier this month after his colleagues added a few more features,including a recommendation engine that suggests studies based on your preferences,an option to download your ratings along with links to the full preprints on bioRxiv,and suggestions for Twitter users with similar tastes as yours.What we want is to help researchers navigate the overwhelming number ofnew papers and uncover interdisciplinary overlap,Leek says.Scientists already use social media to discover new papers,he says;Papr aims to simplify that process and capture people's evaluations along the way.Four rating categories is enough,Leek says;other services,including PubPeer,offer space for longer comments and discussions.To prevent readers from giving their rivals'papers bad ratings or rate a paper as interesting just because it was written by a famous scientist,Papr doesn't show author names and doesn't let you search for a specific preprint or author."For me,the importance of Papr is illustrating that preprint services like bioRxiv enable novel methods of evaluation to emerge,"says Brian Nosek,executive director of the Center for Open Science in Charlottesville,Virginia."We don't believe that the data we are collecting is any kind of realistic peer review,but it does tell us something about the types of papers people find interesting and what leads them to be suspicious,"Leek says."Ultimately we hope to correlate this data with information about where the papers are published and other more in-depth measurements of paper quality."But don't take Papr too seriously,because its developers don't."This app is provided solely for entertainment of the scient讯c community and may be taken down at any time with no notice because Jeff gets tired ofit,"the Papr website says.32.According to Leek,the goal of Papr is toA.find similar Tweeter users.B.replace social medias to find new papers.C.ease the papers search and get them rated.D.provide more papers to users.
Thousands of papers are submitted every month to the platforms arXiv and bioRxiv,which make manuscripts available before they have been peer reviewed and accepted by a journal.Scientists applaud preprints because they enable researchers to claim priority and make their findings available more quickly,unshackled from sluggish and tyrannical journals.This might make sense within the scientific community,but this method of publication holds substantial risks for the broadcr community-risks that are not being given proper consideration by the champions of preprint.Weak work that hasn't been reviewed could get overblown in the media.Conversely,better work could be ignored.Many people still learn about science the same way they learn about Syria or the World Cup:through news sites,television and radio.The bulk of research reported through these channels is peer reviewed.A few days before a paper is published,the science journal will issue a restricted press release to qualified journalists under an agreement that no one will report on the paper until a designated time.The system has its flaws,but it does give reporters time to assess the research and gather expert reaction.Contrast this with preprints.As soon as research is in the public domain,there is nothing to stop a journalist writing about it,and rushing to be the first to do so.Imagine early findings that seem to show that climate change is natural or that a common vaccine is unsafe.Preprints on subjects such as those could,if they become a story that goes viral,end up misleading millions,whether or not that was the intention of the authors.Another risk is the inverse-and this one could matter more to some researchers.Under the preprint system,one daring journalist searching through the servers can break a story;by the time other reporters have noticed,it's old news,and they can't persuade their editors to publish.There have been cases in which a preprint that garnered news stories got a second wave of coverage when it was published in a journal.But generally,the rule is'it has to be new to be news'.It is not enough to shrug and blame journalists,and it is unhelpful to dismiss those journalists who can accurately convey complex science to a mass audience.Journalists do include appropriate warnings or even decide not to run a story when conclusions are uncertain,but that happens only because they have been given enough time and breathing space to assess it.If the scientific community isn't careful,preprints coulcl take that resource away.How can we have preprints and support good journalism?Should scientific societies or preprint advocates develop guidelines for what should and should not be posted as a preprint?Should all preprints be emblazoned with a warning aimed at journalists that work has not been peer reviewed'?Preprints could bring great prizes for science.But these questions must be brought up now,so that public understanding is not damaged as preprints flourish.It's implied in the first two paragraphs thatA.unreviewed research can be accepted by a journal nowadays.B.preprints are very likely to replace journals in the near future.C.scientists have just got released from the traps of journals.D.preprints provide a record of priority for research works.
Thousands of papers are submitted every month to the platforms arXiv and bioRxiv,which make manuscripts available before they have been peer reviewed and accepted by a journal.Scientists applaud preprints because they enable researchers to claim priority and make their findings available more quickly,unshackled from sluggish and tyrannical journals.This might make sense within the scientific community,but this method of publication holds substantial risks for the broadcr community-risks that are not being given proper consideration by the champions of preprint.Weak work that hasn't been reviewed could get overblown in the media.Conversely,better work could be ignored.Many people still learn about science the same way they learn about Syria or the World Cup:through news sites,television and radio.The bulk of research reported through these channels is peer reviewed.A few days before a paper is published,the science journal will issue a restricted press release to qualified journalists under an agreement that no one will report on the paper until a designated time.The system has its flaws,but it does give reporters time to assess the research and gather expert reaction.Contrast this with preprints.As soon as research is in the public domain,there is nothing to stop a journalist writing about it,and rushing to be the first to do so.Imagine early findings that seem to show that climate change is natural or that a common vaccine is unsafe.Preprints on subjects such as those could,if they become a story that goes viral,end up misleading millions,whether or not that was the intention of the authors.Another risk is the inverse-and this one could matter more to some researchers.Under the preprint system,one daring journalist searching through the servers can break a story;by the time other reporters have noticed,it's old news,and they can't persuade their editors to publish.There have been cases in which a preprint that garnered news stories got a second wave of coverage when it was published in a journal.But generally,the rule is'it has to be new to be news'.It is not enough to shrug and blame journalists,and it is unhelpful to dismiss those journalists who can accurately convey complex science to a mass audience.Journalists do include appropriate warnings or even decide not to run a story when conclusions are uncertain,but that happens only because they have been given enough time and breathing space to assess it.If the scientific community isn't careful,preprints coulcl take that resource away.How can we have preprints and support good journalism?Should scientific societies or preprint advocates develop guidelines for what should and should not be posted as a preprint?Should all preprints be emblazoned with a warning aimed at journalists that work has not been peer reviewed'?Preprints could bring great prizes for science.But these questions must be brought up now,so that public understanding is not damaged as preprints flourish.Traditional research reporting channelsA.are no longer a reliable source for science.B.report peer reviewed research papers only.C.cover research not published in journals yet.D.get the coverage of weak work under control.
Thousands of papers are submitted every month to the platforms arXiv and bioRxiv,which make manuscripts available before they have been peer reviewed and accepted by a journal.Scientists applaud preprints because they enable researchers to claim priority and make their findings available more quickly,unshackled from sluggish and tyrannical journals.This might make sense within the scientific community,but this method of publication holds substantial risks for the broadcr community-risks that are not being given proper consideration by the champions of preprint.Weak work that hasn't been reviewed could get overblown in the media.Conversely,better work could be ignored.Many people still learn about science the same way they learn about Syria or the World Cup:through news sites,television and radio.The bulk of research reported through these channels is peer reviewed.A few days before a paper is published,the science journal will issue a restricted press release to qualified journalists under an agreement that no one will report on the paper until a designated time.The system has its flaws,but it does give reporters time to assess the research and gather expert reaction.Contrast this with preprints.As soon as research is in the public domain,there is nothing to stop a journalist writing about it,and rushing to be the first to do so.Imagine early findings that seem to show that climate change is natural or that a common vaccine is unsafe.Preprints on subjects such as those could,if they become a story that goes viral,end up misleading millions,whether or not that was the intention of the authors.Another risk is the inverse-and this one could matter more to some researchers.Under the preprint system,one daring journalist searching through the servers can break a story;by the time other reporters have noticed,it's old news,and they can't persuade their editors to publish.There have been cases in which a preprint that garnered news stories got a second wave of coverage when it was published in a journal.But generally,the rule is'it has to be new to be news'.It is not enough to shrug and blame journalists,and it is unhelpful to dismiss those journalists who can accurately convey complex science to a mass audience.Journalists do include appropriate warnings or even decide not to run a story when conclusions are uncertain,but that happens only because they have been given enough time and breathing space to assess it.If the scientific community isn't careful,preprints coulcl take that resource away.How can we have preprints and support good journalism?Should scientific societies or preprint advocates develop guidelines for what should and should not be posted as a preprint?Should all preprints be emblazoned with a warning aimed at journalists that work has not been peer reviewed'?Preprints could bring great prizes for science.But these questions must be brought up now,so that public understanding is not damaged as preprints flourish.The author suggests in the last paragraph that preprintsA.are incompatible with good journalism.B.should be forbidden for quality concerns.C.are usually misinterpreted by journalists.D.could promote confusion and distortion.
Text 3 If you're tired of swiping left and right to approve or reject the faces of other people,try something else:rating scientific papers.A web application inspired by the dating app Tinder lets you make snap judgments about preprints-papers published online before peer review-simply by swiping left,right,up,or down.Papr brands itself as"Tinder for preprints"and is almost as superficial as the matchmaker.For now,you only get to see abstracts,not the full papers,and you have to rate them in one of four categories:"exciting and probable,""exciting and questionable,""boring and probable,"or"boring and questionable."Papr co-creator Jeff Leek,a biostatistician at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,released an earlier version of Papr late last year but only started publicizing the app on social media earlier this month after his colleagues added a few more features,including a recommendation engine that suggests studies based on your preferences,an option to download your ratings along with links to the full preprints on bioRxiv,and suggestions for Twitter users with similar tastes as yours.What we want is to help researchers navigate the overwhelming number ofnew papers and uncover interdisciplinary overlap,Leek says.Scientists already use social media to discover new papers,he says;Papr aims to simplify that process and capture people's evaluations along the way.Four rating categories is enough,Leek says;other services,including PubPeer,offer space for longer comments and discussions.To prevent readers from giving their rivals'papers bad ratings or rate a paper as interesting just because it was written by a famous scientist,Papr doesn't show author names and doesn't let you search for a specific preprint or author."For me,the importance of Papr is illustrating that preprint services like bioRxiv enable novel methods of evaluation to emerge,"says Brian Nosek,executive director of the Center for Open Science in Charlottesville,Virginia."We don't believe that the data we are collecting is any kind of realistic peer review,but it does tell us something about the types of papers people find interesting and what leads them to be suspicious,"Leek says."Ultimately we hope to correlate this data with information about where the papers are published and other more in-depth measurements of paper quality."But don't take Papr too seriously,because its developers don't."This app is provided solely for entertainment of the scient讯c community and may be taken down at any time with no notice because Jeff gets tired ofit,"the Papr website says.34.It can be inferred that bioRxiv is a kind ofpreprint services thatA.is an app for use of statistics in research.B.facilitates occurrence ofinnovative review process.C.represents a kind of realistic peer review.D.collects all kinds of research papers.
Text 3 If you're tired of swiping left and right to approve or reject the faces of other people,try something else:rating scientific papers.A web application inspired by the dating app Tinder lets you make snap judgments about preprints-papers published online before peer review-simply by swiping left,right,up,or down.Papr brands itself as"Tinder for preprints"and is almost as superficial as the matchmaker.For now,you only get to see abstracts,not the full papers,and you have to rate them in one of four categories:"exciting and probable,""exciting and questionable,""boring and probable,"or"boring and questionable."Papr co-creator Jeff Leek,a biostatistician at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,released an earlier version of Papr late last year but only started publicizing the app on social media earlier this month after his colleagues added a few more features,including a recommendation engine that suggests studies based on your preferences,an option to download your ratings along with links to the full preprints on bioRxiv,and suggestions for Twitter users with similar tastes as yours.What we want is to help researchers navigate the overwhelming number ofnew papers and uncover interdisciplinary overlap,Leek says.Scientists already use social media to discover new papers,he says;Papr aims to simplify that process and capture people's evaluations along the way.Four rating categories is enough,Leek says;other services,including PubPeer,offer space for longer comments and discussions.To prevent readers from giving their rivals'papers bad ratings or rate a paper as interesting just because it was written by a famous scientist,Papr doesn't show author names and doesn't let you search for a specific preprint or author."For me,the importance of Papr is illustrating that preprint services like bioRxiv enable novel methods of evaluation to emerge,"says Brian Nosek,executive director of the Center for Open Science in Charlottesville,Virginia."We don't believe that the data we are collecting is any kind of realistic peer review,but it does tell us something about the types of papers people find interesting and what leads them to be suspicious,"Leek says."Ultimately we hope to correlate this data with information about where the papers are published and other more in-depth measurements of paper quality."But don't take Papr too seriously,because its developers don't."This app is provided solely for entertainment of the scient讯c community and may be taken down at any time with no notice because Jeff gets tired ofit,"the Papr website says.31.Papr is a web application used toA.function as app Tinder.B.do peer review works.C.assess unpublished papers.D.read free scientific papers.
Thousands of papers are submitted every month to the platforms arXiv and bioRxiv,which make manuscripts available before they have been peer reviewed and accepted by a journal.Scientists applaud preprints because they enable researchers to claim priority and make their findings available more quickly,unshackled from sluggish and tyrannical journals.This might make sense within the scientific community,but this method of publication holds substantial risks for the broadcr community-risks that are not being given proper consideration by the champions of preprint.Weak work that hasn't been reviewed could get overblown in the media.Conversely,better work could be ignored.Many people still learn about science the same way they learn about Syria or the World Cup:through news sites,television and radio.The bulk of research reported through these channels is peer reviewed.A few days before a paper is published,the science journal will issue a restricted press release to qualified journalists under an agreement that no one will report on the paper until a designated time.The system has its flaws,but it does give reporters time to assess the research and gather expert reaction.Contrast this with preprints.As soon as research is in the public domain,there is nothing to stop a journalist writing about it,and rushing to be the first to do so.Imagine early findings that seem to show that climate change is natural or that a common vaccine is unsafe.Preprints on subjects such as those could,if they become a story that goes viral,end up misleading millions,whether or not that was the intention of the authors.Another risk is the inverse-and this one could matter more to some researchers.Under the preprint system,one daring journalist searching through the servers can break a story;by the time other reporters have noticed,it's old news,and they can't persuade their editors to publish.There have been cases in which a preprint that garnered news stories got a second wave of coverage when it was published in a journal.But generally,the rule is'it has to be new to be news'.It is not enough to shrug and blame journalists,and it is unhelpful to dismiss those journalists who can accurately convey complex science to a mass audience.Journalists do include appropriate warnings or even decide not to run a story when conclusions are uncertain,but that happens only because they have been given enough time and breathing space to assess it.If the scientific community isn't careful,preprints coulcl take that resource away.How can we have preprints and support good journalism?Should scientific societies or preprint advocates develop guidelines for what should and should not be posted as a preprint?Should all preprints be emblazoned with a warning aimed at journalists that work has not been peer reviewed'?Preprints could bring great prizes for science.But these questions must be brought up now,so that public understanding is not damaged as preprints flourish.One problem with the preprint system is thatA.scientists rend to sacrifice accuracy in the rush to publish.B.journalists may report on preprints against the authors'will.C.news media may dismiss formal publications as old news.D.journals may refuse to consider preprinted papers.
Please make sure all items have been __________ from the desks before the new employees arrive next week.A.removedB.removeC.removesD.removing
If your application ______ submitted before the deadline, you would have gotten the offer.A.beB.isC.had beenD.will be
Neither of the young men who had applied for a position in the university( ). A.has been accepted B.have been accepted C.was accepted D.were accepted
If the doctor had been available, the child （）Awould not dieBcould not have diedCmight not dieDshould not have died
While designing your database， you have created the EMPLOYEES table as an index/x7forganized table （IOT）. You want to create a bitmap index on the JOB_ID column to make queries faster. Which task must have been completed so that you are able to create the bitmap index？（）A、A primary key must have been created.B、A mapping table must have been created.C、An overflow tablespace must have been specified.D、The PCTTHRESHOLD option must have been specified.
翻译：Now that we have already made an inquiry on your articles, will you please make an offer before the end of this month?
While designing your database， you have created the EMPLOYEEStable as an index-organized （IOT）. You want to create a bitmap index on the JOD_IDcolumn to make queries faster. Which task must have been completed so that you are able to create the bitmap index？（）A、 A primary key must have been created.B、 A mapping table must have been created.C、 An overflow tablespace must have been specified.D、 The PCTTHRESHOLD option must have been specified.
多选题Which two secure remote access methods are available on the WX platforms?（） (Choose two.)ASSLBSSHCTelnetDHTTP
单选题The second report was ______ by August 2005, but one year later it was still nowhere in sight.AsubmittedBto have submittedCto submitDto have been submitted
单选题Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plans must be reviewed（）.Aannually by the owner，with a letter submitted six months before expirationBonly once every five years，with a letter submitted six months before expirationCand the entire plan resubmitted for approval once every five years，six months before expirationDannually by the owner，with a letter submitted to the Coast Guard within one month of the anniversary date of the plan approval
单选题While designing your database， you have created the EMPLOYEEStable as an index-organized （IOT）. You want to create a bitmap index on the JOD_IDcolumn to make queries faster. Which task must have been completed so that you are able to create the bitmap index？（）A A primary key must have been created.B A mapping table must have been created.C An overflow tablespace must have been specified.D The PCTTHRESHOLD option must have been specified.
问答题翻译：Now that we have already made an inquiry on your articles, will you please make an offer before the end of this month?
单选题Which of the following is TRUE according to the passage?AAll schools have peer mediators.BPeer mediators are usually students.CWhen disputants are speaking, peer mediators can stop their words at any time.DPeer mediators can make disputants get a “win-win” result every time.