Text 3

①The?journal?Science?is?adding?an?extra?round新增一輪?of?statistical?checks（統(tǒng)計檢查）?to?its?peer-review?process（同行評審過程）, editor-in-chief?（主編）Marcia McNutt announced today. ②The policy?follows similar efforts from other journals, after widespread concern擔(dān)憂，關(guān)關(guān)注?that basic mistakes in?data analysis數(shù)據(jù)分析?are contributing to?the irreproducibility（不可復(fù)制性）?of many published research?findings.

翻譯：《科學(xué)》雜志的主編MM今天發(fā)出聲明，《科學(xué)》正在給它的同行評審過程增加新的一輪數(shù)據(jù)統(tǒng)計審查。這個政策與其他期刊的努力一致，因為人們逐漸擔(dān)心數(shù)據(jù)分析中的基本錯誤導(dǎo)致了發(fā)表的研究中的不可復(fù)制性。數(shù)據(jù)分析中的基本錯誤導(dǎo)致許多已經(jīng)發(fā)表的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)具有很強的不可復(fù)用性，這個問題受到廣泛關(guān)注后，這項政策隨著其他期刊的類似努力產(chǎn)生。

分析：首先首段就表明《科學(xué)》雜志是要增加一輪審查過程。第一題的答案得出。

?data analysis數(shù)據(jù)分析

statistical?checks（統(tǒng)計檢查）

Peer-review process（同行評審過程）

editor-in-chief （主編）

irreproducibility（不可復(fù)制性）

Round,圓形的，一輪，可表示工作流程中的一個循環(huán)。

在文章中有關(guān)審查的有：

statistical?checks（統(tǒng)計檢查）

Peer-review process（同行評審過程）

American Statistical Association美國統(tǒng)計協(xié)會

?a statistics board?統(tǒng)計委員會of reviewing editors?(SBoRE)

board有委員會之意，除此之外還有董事會的意思

?scrutiny?審查

Review審查

①“Readers?must?have?confidence?in對.....有信心?the?conclusions?published?in?our?journal,”?writes?McNutt in an editorial（評論，社論）. ②Working with the American Statistical Association美國統(tǒng)計協(xié)會, the journal has?appointed指派?seven experts?to?a statistics board?統(tǒng)計委員會of reviewing editors?(SBoRE). ③Manuscript手稿?will be?flagged up?for?additional?scrutiny?審查by?the?journal’s?internal?editors,?or?by?its?existing?Board?of?Reviewing?Editors現(xiàn)有的審查編輯委員會?or by outside peer reviewers. ④The SBoRE panel小組?will then find external statisticians外部統(tǒng)計學(xué)家?to review these manuscripts.

翻譯：“必須要讓讀者對我們雜志上發(fā)表出來的成果有信心”M在一篇評論上面寫道。《科學(xué)》雜志和美國統(tǒng)計協(xié)會一道努力，指派6名專家成立一個審查編輯統(tǒng)計委員會。所有的手稿將會被標(biāo)記，接受雜志內(nèi)部編輯的新增審查，或者交給現(xiàn)有的編輯審查委員會復(fù)審，再或者交由外部的同行審查。編輯審查小組將會找一些外部的統(tǒng)計學(xué)者來評審這些初稿。

分析：《科學(xué)》雜志要給手稿增加審查過程的具體措施，主要分為內(nèi)部審查和外部審查。總之要加大審查力度。

①Asked whether any particular papers had?impelled（推動）?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.”

翻譯：被問到是不是有特別的論文推動了這次變革的時候,M說“統(tǒng)計委員會的成立是由于人們對在科學(xué)研究中統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)分析的應(yīng)用的廣泛擔(dān)憂，并且這是《科學(xué)》的全面推動提高我們發(fā)表的研究的可重復(fù)性的進程中的重要一步。”

分析：表明了《科學(xué)》雜志加大審查力度的原因和動機。

①Giovanni Parmigiani, a biostatistician?生物統(tǒng)計學(xué)家at the Harvard School of Public Health, a member of?the SBoRE group, says he expects the board to “play primarily an?advisory咨詢?role.” ②He agreed to join?because?he?“found?the?foresight遠見?behind?the?establishment?建立of?the?SBoRE?to?be?novel,?unique?and likely to?have a lasting impact. ③This impact will not only be through the publications in Science itself, but?hopefully through a larger group of publishing places出版場所，出版方?that may want to?model their approach after?Science.”

翻譯：GP,哈佛大學(xué)公眾健康的一名生物統(tǒng)計學(xué)家，它是SBoRE組織的一名成員，他說他期望這個組織發(fā)揮主要的咨詢作用。他之所以同意加入，是因為他看到了這個組織的建立的遠景，這個組織將會是新奇獨特的，并且將會產(chǎn)生長遠的影響。這個影響不僅僅是對于《科學(xué)》雜志本身，也非常有希望能夠給那些想要模仿《科學(xué)》的道路的出版社帶來影響。

分析：這段說明了《科學(xué)》加大審查力度的好處影響。

①John Ioannidis, a physician內(nèi)科醫(yī)生?who studies research methodology研究方法, says that the policy is “a most welcome?step forward向前的一步” and “l(fā)ong?overdue早應(yīng)該完成的.” ②“Most journals?are weak in?statistical review, and?this?damages?the?quality?of?what?they?publish.?③I?think?that,?for?the?majority?of?scientific?papers nowadays, statistical review is more essential than expert review,” he says. ④But 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.

翻譯：JI,一名學(xué)習(xí)研究方法的內(nèi)科醫(yī)生，說“這個政策是最受歡迎的一步”并且“早就應(yīng)該完成了。”“大多數(shù)的期刊在統(tǒng)計審查方面非常薄弱，這一點對他們發(fā)表的文章的質(zhì)量有損，我認(rèn)為，對于今天的大多數(shù)科學(xué)雜志，統(tǒng)計審查比專家評審更加重要。”他說。另外他指出一生物醫(yī)學(xué)雜志像《內(nèi)科編年史》、《美國醫(yī)學(xué)協(xié)會雜志》、《柳葉刀》非常關(guān)注統(tǒng)計審查。

分析：JI也認(rèn)為《科學(xué)》雜志的做法是對的。

①Professional scientists are expected to?know how to analyze data, but statistical errors?are?alarmingly令人擔(dān)憂的?common?in?published?research,?according?to?David?Vaux,?a?cell?biologist.?②Researchers should?improve their standards, he wrote in 2012, but journals should also take a tougher line采取強硬態(tài)度, “engaging reviewers who are?statistically literate?and editors who can verify the process.” ③Vaux says that Science’s idea to pass some papers to statisticians “has some merit價值,?but?a weakness is that it?relies?on?the?board?of?reviewing?editors?to?identify?‘the?papers?that?need?scrutiny’?in?the?first?place.”

翻譯：根據(jù)DV，一個細胞生物學(xué)家說，專業(yè)的科學(xué)家應(yīng)該知道如何分析數(shù)據(jù)，但令人擔(dān)憂的是統(tǒng)計錯誤在發(fā)表過的研究中非常常見的。他在2012年寫道，研究者應(yīng)該提高他們的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，但雜志也應(yīng)該采取更加嚴(yán)格的態(tài)度。“吸引一些有統(tǒng)計學(xué)文化的審查人員和一些能夠修正這個過程的編輯”Vaux說《科學(xué)》雜志發(fā)送一些論文給統(tǒng)計學(xué)家的辦法“有一定的價值，但是不足之處是，這個過程首先依賴于審查編輯定義需要審查的論文”。

分析：DV的觀點認(rèn)為，《科學(xué)》雜志的舉措有所價值，但是有一定的局限性。

文章主要脈絡(luò)：

首段提出《科學(xué)》雜志準(zhǔn)備增加一輪統(tǒng)計審查的舉措——>《科學(xué)》雜志的具體工作——>后面是幾個相關(guān)人員的觀點：首先是M,GP,JI幾個人，他們對于《科學(xué)》的做法都是非常支持的，最后是DV他認(rèn)可《科學(xué)》的舉措，但是認(rèn)為有一定的局限性。

[if !supportLists]21.?[endif]It can be learned from Paragraph 1?that（細節(jié)題，定位第一段）B

［A］Science intends to simplify（簡化）?its peer-review process.×與文章相反

［B］journals are?strengthening加強?their statistical checks.

［C］few journals are blamed for?被歸咎于mistakes in data analysis.未提及

［D］lack of data analysis is common in research projects.常見的是不可復(fù)制性

[if !supportLists]22.?[endif]The phrase “flagged up” (Para. 2) is the closest in meaning?to（猜詞題，定位第二段）

［A］found. ［B］revised.修訂（容易錯選，但是想想看，人家研究人員的研究成果，你一個編輯還是沒有資格修改的吧？）

［C］marked.標(biāo)記 ［D］stored.

[if !supportLists]23.?[endif]Giovanni Parmigiani believes that the establishment of the SBoRE?may（細節(jié)題）D

［A］pose a threat to all its peers.

［B］meet with strong opposition.

［C］increase Science’s circulation.

［D］set an example for other journals.

[if !supportLists]24.?[endif]David Vaux holds that what Science is doing?now（細節(jié)題，作者態(tài)度題）C

［A］adds to researchers’ workload.未提及

［B］diminishes減少?the role of reviewers.相反

［C］has room for further improvement.

［D］is to fail in the foreseeable future.未提及

[if !supportLists]25.?[endif]Which of the following is the best title of the?text?（主旨題）A

［A］Science Joins Push to Screen Statistics in?Papers.

［B］Professional Statisticians Deserve More?Respect.沒有提到有關(guān)尊重的話題

［C］Data Analysis Finds Its Way onto Editors’?Desks.文章確實提到了是數(shù)據(jù)分析，但是不是文章的主題內(nèi)容，文章主要講的是有關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)分析的錯誤的審查。

［D］Statisticians Are Coming Back with Science未提及