The average number of authors on scientific papers is sky-rocketing . That's partly because labs are bigger , problems are more complicated , and more different subspecialties are needed . But it's also because U . S . government agencies have started to promote “team science” . As physics developed in the post-World War Ⅱ era , federal funds built expensive national facilities , and these served as surfaces on which collaborations could crystallize naturally .

Yet multiple authorship — however good it maybe in other ways — presents for journals and for the institutions in which these authors work . For the journals , long lists of authors are hard to deal with in themselves . But those long lists give rise to more serious questions when something goes wrong with the paper . If there is research misconduct , how should the liability be allocated among the authors? If there is an honest mistake in one part of the work but not in others , how should an evaluator aim his or her review?

Various practical or impractical suggestions have emerged during the long-standing debate on this issue . One is that each author should provide , and the journal should then publish , an account of that author's particular contribution to the work . But a different view of the problem , and perhaps of the solution , comes as we get to university committee on appointments and promotions , which is where the authorship rubber really meets the road . Half a lifetime of involvement with this process has taught me how much authorship matters . I have watched committees attempting to decode sequences of names , agonize over whether a much-cited paper was really the candidate's work or a coauthor's , and send back recommendations asking for more specificity about the division of responsibility .

Problems of this kind change the argument , supporting the case for asking authors to define their own roles . After all , if quality judgments about individuals are to be made on the basis of their personal contributions , then the judges better know what they did . But if questions arise about the validity of the work as a whole , whether as challenges to its conduct or as evaluations of its influence in the field , a team is a team , and the members should share the credit or the blame . (367 words)

1 ． According to the passage , there is a tendency that scientific papers .

A ． are getting more complicated

B ． are dealing with bigger problems

C ． are more of a product of team work

D ． are focusing more on natural than on social sciences

2 ． One of the problems with multiple authorship is that it is hard .

A ． to allocate the responsibility if the paper goes wrong

B ． to decide on how much contribution each reviewer has made

C ． to assign the roles that the different authors are to play

D ． to correspond with the authors when the readers feel the need to

3 ． According to the passage , authorship is important when .

A ． practical or impractical suggestions of the authors are considered

B ． appointments and promotions of the authors are involved

C ． evaluators need to review the publication of the authors

D ． the publication of the authors has become much-cited

4 ． According to the passage , whether multiple authors of a paper should be taken collectively or individually depends on .

A ． whether judgments are made about the paper or its authors

B ． whether it is the credit or the blame that the authors need to share

C ． how many authors are involved in the paper

D ． where the paper has been published

5 ． The best title for the passage can be .

A ． Writing Scientific Papers: Publish or Perish

B ． Collaboration and Responsibility in Writing Scientific Papers

C ． Advantages and Disadvantages of Team Science

D ． Multiple Authors , Multiple Problems

1 ． C 。

2 ． A 。

3 ． B 。

4 ． A 。

5 ． D 。

更多信息請(qǐng)登錄育路網(wǎng)在職研究生頻道（http://zzy.yuloo.com）