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, 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”.
1. It can be learned from Paragraph 1 that ________.
2. The phrase “flagged up” (Para. 2) is the closest in meaning to ________.
3. Giovanni Parmigiani believes that the establishment of the SBoRE may ________.
4. David Vaux holds that what Science is doing now ________.
5. Which of the following is the best title of the text?
问题1选项
A.
Science intends to simplify its peer-review process
B.journals are strengthening their statistical checks
C.few journals are blamed for mistakes in data analysis
D.lack of data analysis is common in research projects
问题2选项
A.found
B.marked
C.revised
D.stored
问题3选项
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
问题4选项
A.adds to researchers’ workload
B.diminishes the role of reviewers
C.has room for further improvement
D.is to fail in the foreseeable future
问题5选项
A.
Science Joins Push to Screen Statistics in Papers
B.Professional Statisticians Deserve More Respect
C.Data Analysis Finds Its Way onto Editors’ Desks
D.Statisticians Are Coming Back with
Science
第1题:B
第2题:B
第3题:D
第4题:C
第5题:A
第1题:
【整体分析】
来源:Scientific American《经济学人》于2014年7月6日刊登的文章Major Scientific Journal Joins Push to Screen Statistics in Papers It Publishes(主要科学期刊加入推进在其发表的论文中审核统计数据)。
主题:本文主要介绍了《科学》期刊引入额外的统计审核环节,以解决研究中常见的统计错误和数据分析问题。该期刊与美国统计协会合作成立了统计审核编辑委员会,旨在提高研究结果的可复用性。专家们认为这是一项积极的举措,并强调统计审核在科学研究中的重要性。同时,文章指出其他一些期刊也在重视统计审核,并引用了细胞生物学家大卫•沃克斯的观点,他呼吁提高研究人员和期刊的标准以确保数据的准确性。
结构:
【试题解析】
【选项释义】
It can be learned from Paragraph 1 that ________. 从第1段可以得知,________。
A. Science intends to simplify its peer-review process A. 《科学》期刊打算简化其同行评审程序
B. journals are strengthening their statistical checks B. 期刊正在加强它们的统计审核
C. few journals are blamed for mistakes in data analysis C. 很少有期刊因为数据分析的错误而受到指责
D. lack of data analysis is common in research projects D. 在研究项目中,缺乏数据分析是常见的
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词Paragraph 1可以定位到文章第一段第一句“《科学》期刊的主编马西娅•麦克纳特今天宣布,该期刊的同行评审过程将增加额外的统计审核环节(adding an extra round of statistical checks to its peer-review process)”,说明期刊正在强化统计审核。因此B选项“期刊正在加强它们的统计审核”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“《科学》期刊打算简化其同行评审程序”,由adding an extra round of statistical checks to its peer-review process(该期刊的同行评审过程将增加额外的统计审核环节)可知,是增加审核程序,而不是简化,属于反向干扰;
C选项“很少有期刊因为数据分析的错误而受到指责”在文中没有提及,属于无中生有;
D选项“在研究项目中,缺乏数据分析是常见的”,由widespread concern that basic mistakes in data analysis(人们普遍担心数据分析中存在的基本错误)可知,研究中数据分析出现错误是常见的,而不是普遍缺乏数据分析,属于偷换概念。
第2题:
【选项释义】
The phrase “flagged up” (Para. 2) is the closest in meaning to ________. 短语“flagged up”(第2段)的意思与________最接近。
A. found A. 发现
B. marked B. 标记
C. revised C. 修改
D. stored D. 存储
【考查点】词汇推断题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词flagged up可以定位到文章第二段第三、四句“稿件将由期刊的内部编辑、现有的审稿编辑委员会或外部同行评审人员flagged up,以接受额外审查。然后,统计审核编辑委员会将聘请外部统计学家对这些稿件进行评审”,说明评审的流程是先由审稿编辑委员会选出需要进一步审核的文章,然后由统计学家进行评审。flag up是固定搭配,意为“指出;标记”,因此B选项“标记”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“发现”,C选项“修改”和D选项“存储”在文中均无法体现,属于无中生有。
第3题:
【选项释义】
Giovanni Parmigiani believes that the establishment of the SBoRE may ________. 乔凡尼•帕尔米吉亚尼认为,统计审核编辑委员会的建立可能________。
A. pose a threat to all its peers A. 对其所有同行构成威胁
B. meet with strong opposition B. 遇到强烈的反对
C. increase Science’s circulation C. 增加《科学》的发行量
D. set an example for other journals D. 为其他期刊树立一个榜样
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词Giovanni Parmigiani可以定位到文章第四段第三句“这种影响不仅体现在《科学》期刊自己刊载的文章,而且有望对一大批想效仿《科学》期刊做法的出版商产生作用(hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that may want to model their approach after Science)”,说明《科学》期刊成立统计审核编辑委员会将为其他期刊树立榜样。因此D选项“为其他期刊树立一个榜样”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“对其所有同行构成威胁”,由hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that may want to model their approach after Science(有望对一大批想效仿《科学》期刊做法的出版商产生作用)可知,成立该委员会不会对同行构成威胁,反而会得到他们的效仿,属于反向干扰;
B选项“遇到强烈的反对”,由hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that may want to model their approach after Science(有望对一大批想效仿《科学》期刊做法的出版商产生作用)可知,其他期刊支持该做法,并纷纷效仿,属于反向干扰;
C选项“增加《科学》的发行量”在文中没有提及,属于无中生有。
第4题:
【选项释义】
David Vaux holds that what Science is doing now ________. 大卫•沃克斯认为,《科学》期刊现在的做法________。
A. adds to researchers’ workload A. 增加了研究人员的工作量
B. diminishes the role of reviewers B. 削弱了审稿人的作用
C. has room for further improvement C. 有进一步改进的空间
D. is to fail in the foreseeable future D. 在可预见的未来是会失败的
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词David Vaux可以定位到文章第六段第三句“沃克斯表示,《科学》期刊将部分论文交给统计学家进行审核的想法有一定的优点,但有一个缺点是它依赖于审核编辑委员会来首先找出那些‘需要进一步审查的论文’(a weakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify ‘the papers that need scrutiny’ in the first place”)”,说明大卫•沃克斯认为,《科学》期刊现在的做法仍然存在不足,可以改进。因此C选项“有进一步改进的空间”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“增加了研究人员的工作量”和D选项“在可预见的未来是会失败的”在文中没有提及,属于无中生有;
B选项“削弱了审稿人的作用”,由a weakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify “the papers that need scrutiny” in the first place( 有一个缺点是它依赖于审核编辑委员会来首先找出那些“需要进一步审查的论文”)可知,审稿人仍然会发挥作用,属于反向干扰。
第5题:
【选项释义】
Which of the following is the best title of the text? 以下哪项是本文的最佳标题?
A. Science Joins Push to Screen Statistics in Papers A. 《科学》期刊加入论文数据审核的行列
B. Professional Statisticians Deserve More Respect B. 专业统计学家应该得到更多的尊重
C. Data Analysis Finds Its Way onto Editors’ Desks C. 数据分析上了编辑的办公桌
D. Statisticians Are Coming Back with Science D. 统计学家随《科学》期刊回归
【考查点】主旨大意题。
【解题思路】本文的主要焦点是《科学》期刊将在同行评审过程中增加额外的统计审查,强调了与美国统计协会合作成立统计审核委员会,以及各种专家对科学研究中统计审核重要性的观点。因此A选项“《科学》期刊加入论文数据审核的行列”正确。
【干扰项排除】
B选项“专业统计学家应该得到更多的尊重”和D选项“统计学家随《科学》期刊回归”在文中没有提及,属于无中生有;
C选项“数据分析上了编辑的办公桌”,文章主要讨论的是统计审查,数据分析只是论文审查借助的工具,不能概括全文的主旨大意,属于以偏概全。
【重点词汇】
irreproducibility /ˌɪrɪˌproʊdʌsəˈbɪlɪti/ n. 不可复现性
editorial /ˌɛdɪˈtɔːriəl/ n. 社论
manuscript /ˈmænəskrɪpt/ n. 手稿
scrutiny /ˈskruːtəni/ n. 审查
methodology /ˌmɛθəˈdɒlədʒi/ n. 方法论
alarmingly /əˈlɑːrmɪŋli/ adv. 令人担忧地
statistician /ˌstætɪˈstɪʃən/ n. 统计学家
expertise /ˌɛkspɜːrˈtiːz/ n. 专业知识
rigorous /ˈrɪɡərəs/ adj. 严格的
implementation /ˌɪmplɪmɛnˈteɪʃən/ n. 实施
peer-review process 同行评审流程
statistical check 统计审核
【长难句分析】
1. 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.
【结构分析】
【补充分析】
① because引导原因状语从句,用于解释为什么他同意加入统计审核编辑委员会;
② behind the establishment of the SBoRE是介词短语作后置定语,修饰foresight,表示成立统计审核编辑委员会背后的远见;
③ to be novel, unique and likely to have a lasting impact是三个并列的宾语补足语,补充说明foresight的特征和性质。
【参考译文】他之所以同意加入是因为他认为成立统计审核编辑委员会背后的远见新颖独特,并且有可能会产生长远的影响。
2. 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”.
【结构分析】
【补充分析】
① that引导两个宾语从句,作says的宾语,说明沃克斯认为统计审核既有优点,也存在缺点;
② that引导表语从句,接在系动词is后面作表语,说明沃克斯认为统计审核的缺点是什么;
③ that引导定语从句,修饰papers,说明审核编辑委员需要首先找出那些需要进一步审查的论文。
【参考译文】沃克斯表示,《科学》期刊将部分论文交给统计学家进行审核的想法“有一定的优点,但有一个缺点是它依赖于审核编辑委员会来首先找出那些‘需要进一步审查的论文’”。
【全文翻译】
《科学》期刊的主编马西娅•麦克纳特今天宣布,该期刊的同行评审过程将增加额外的统计审核环节。该政策效仿了其他期刊的类似做法,这是考虑到人们普遍担心,数据分析中存在的基本错误会导致许多已经发表的研究结果不可复用。
麦克纳特在一篇社论中写道:“读者必须对我们期刊中发表的结论有信心。”该期刊与美国统计协会合作,成立了一个由七名专家组成的统计审核编辑委员会(SBoRE)。稿件将由期刊的内部编辑、现有的审稿编辑委员会或外部同行评审人员进行标记,以接受额外审查。然后,统计审核编辑委员会将聘请外部统计学家对这些稿件进行评审。
当被问及是否有特定的论文促使这一变化时,麦克纳特表示:“总的来说,之前‘统计审核委员会’的创建是由于人们对科学研究中统计和数据分析的应用问题的关注,现在也是《科学》期刊为提升所发表研究的可复用性而做出的一次全面努力。”
哈佛大学公共卫生学院的生物统计学家乔凡尼•帕尔米吉亚尼是统计审核编辑委员会的成员之一,他表示自己预计该委员会将“主要发挥咨询作用”。他之所以同意加入是因为他认为“成立统计审核编辑委员会背后的远见新颖独特,并且有可能会产生长远的影响。这种影响不仅体现在《科学》期刊自己刊载的文章,而且有望对一大批想效仿《科学》期刊做法的出版商产生作用。”
研究方法论的内科医生约翰•约阿尼迪斯说,这项政策是“最令人高兴的一大步”,而且“早就应该出台了”。他说:“大多数期刊在统计审核方面做得很弱,这损害了他们发表文章的质量。我认为,对于现在的大多数科学论文来说,统计审核比专家评审更为重要。”但他指出,像《内科学年鉴》《美国医学协会杂志》和《柳叶刀》这样的生物医学期刊非常重视统计审核。
根据细胞生物学家大卫•沃克斯的观点,专业科学家应该具备数据分析的能力,但在发表的研究中,统计错误却屡见不鲜。他在2012年写到,研究人员应该提高自身标准,但期刊也应采取更严格的态度,“聘请具备统计学知识的审稿人和能够验证过程的编辑”。沃克斯表示,《科学》期刊将部分论文交给统计学家进行审核的想法“有一定的优点,但有一个缺点是它依赖于审核编辑委员会来首先找出那些‘需要进一步审查的论文’”。