考研英語真題2015text3精讀

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

?著作權(quán)歸作者所有,轉(zhuǎn)載或內(nèi)容合作請聯(lián)系作者
平臺聲明:文章內(nèi)容(如有圖片或視頻亦包括在內(nèi))由作者上傳并發(fā)布,文章內(nèi)容僅代表作者本人觀點,簡書系信息發(fā)布平臺,僅提供信息存儲服務(wù)。

推薦閱讀更多精彩內(nèi)容

  • **2014真題Directions:Read the following text. Choose the be...
    又是夜半驚坐起閱讀 9,828評論 0 23
  • 本文是我2010年《美國兒童疫苗》系列長文的第一章。原在谷歌博客發(fā)布,但國內(nèi)也無法閱讀谷歌博客。后轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)于天涯博客,...
    火星特快閱讀 999評論 0 1
  • 16宿命:用概率思維提高你的勝算 以前的我是風(fēng)險厭惡者,不喜歡去冒險,但是人生放棄了冒險,也就放棄了無數(shù)的可能。 ...
    yichen大刀閱讀 6,098評論 0 4
  • 公元:2019年11月28日19時42分農(nóng)歷:二零一九年 十一月 初三日 戌時干支:己亥乙亥己巳甲戌當(dāng)月節(jié)氣:立冬...
    石放閱讀 6,909評論 0 2