$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$Text 3
$\quad$$\quad$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.
$\quad$$\quad$《科学》杂志主编Marcia McNutt今天宣布,该杂志将在同行评审过程中增加一轮额外的统计检查。这项政策遵循了其他期刊类似的工作,此前,人们普遍担心数据分析中的基本错误导致了许多已发表的研究成果的不可扩散性。
$\quad$$\quad$“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). Manuscripts 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.
$\quad$$\quad$“读者必须对我们杂志中推广的推论有信心”,McNutt在一份编辑笔记中写道。期刊与美国统计协会一同工作,并任命了七名专家加入统计评审编辑委员会。稿件将被标记出来,接受期刊内部编辑、现有评审编辑委员会或外部同行评审员的进一步审查。然后,SBoRE小组将找到外部统计学家来审查这些手稿。
$\quad$$\quad$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.”
$\quad$$\quad$当被问及是否有特定的报纸促成了这种变化时,McNutt说道:“创建‘统计委员会’的动机是广泛关注统计和数据分析在科学研究中的应用,也是《科学》提高我们发表的研究的重现性的整体动力的一部分。”
$\quad$$\quad$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.”
$\quad$$\quad$Giovanni Parmigiani 是哈佛大学公共卫生学院的生物统计学家,也是SBoRE团队的一员,他说,他希望团队“主要扮演顾问的角色”。他同意加入的原因是他“发现了在SBoRE背后隐藏的前景以及奇新颖、独特性,且有着一个持续不断的影响力。这种影响不仅会贯彻在《科学》杂志本身,也会影响到可能想效仿《科学》的更大的出版集团”
$\quad$$\quad$John Ioannidis, a physician who studies research methodology at Stanford University in California, 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.
$\quad$$\quad$John Loannidis是在加州斯坦福大学进行方法研究的医生,说道这种政策是“最受欢迎的进步”并且“早该这样了”。他说道:“许多杂志都缺少数据统计方面的调查,并且这损害了他们杂志的质量。我认为,对于如今的主流科学杂志,数据统计的审查比专家审查更有用。”但他指出,像 Annals of Internal Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet这些杂志都对统计评估非常重视
$\quad$$\quad$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”
$\quad$$\quad$据细胞生物学家David Vaux称,专业科学家应该知道如何分析数据,但在已发表的研究中,统计错误令人担忧地普遍存在。他在2012年写道,研究人员应该提高他们的标准,但期刊也应该采取更强硬的路线,“聘请懂统计的评论家和能够验证过程的编辑”。沃克斯说,《科学》杂志把一些论文交给统计学家的想法“有一些优点,但缺点是它依赖于评审编辑委员会首先确定‘需要审查的论文’”
31 It can be learned from Paragraph 1 that
[A] Science intends to simplify its peer-review process.
《科学》杂志倾向于简化同行审查
[B] journals are strengthening their statistical checks.
杂志将加强其统计数据检查 正确
[C] few journals are blamed for mistakes in data analysis.
很少有杂志因数据分析的错误而受到指责
[D] lack of data analysis is common in research projects.
在科学研究中经常缺少数据分析
32 The phrase “flagged up” (Para. 2) is the closest in meaning to
[A] found.
[B] marked. 正确
[C] revised.
[D] stored.
33 Giovanni Parmigiani believes that the establishment of the SBoRE may
[A] pose a threat to all its peers.
给所有同行一份压力
[B] meet with strong opposition.
遭到了强烈的反对
[C] increase Science’s circulation.
增价《科学》的发行量
[D]set an example for other journals.
给其他杂志做了榜样 正确
34 David Vaux holds that what Science is doing now
[A] adds to researchers’ workload.
增加了研究人员的工作量。
[B] diminishes the role of reviewers.
削弱评论者的作用。
[C] has room for further improvement.
有进一步改进的余地 正确
[D]is to fail in the foreseeable future
可预见的失败
35 Which of the following is the best title of the text?
[A] Science Joins Push to Screen Statistics in Papers. 正确
[B] Professional Statisticians Deserve More Respect
[C] Data Analysis Finds Its Way onto Editors’ Desks
[D] Statisticians Are Coming Back with Science