Part A: Reading Comprehension

Directions: Read the following text. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (40 points)

Text 3

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.”

31. It can be learned from Paragraph 1 that

[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. 

32. The phrase “flagged up” (Para. 2) is the closest in meaning to

[A]

found. 

[B]

revised. 

[C]

marked. 

[D]

stored. 

33. Giovanni Parmigiani believes that the establishment of the SBoRE may

[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. 

34. David Vaux holds that what Science is doing now

[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. 

35. Which of the following is the best title of the text?

[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 

Answers & Explanations (答案与深度解析)

试题精解

31. [B] journals are strengthening their statistical checks.
【解析】细节推断题。第一段提到《科学》杂志增加了额外的统计检查环节，紧接着第二句说：“The policy follows similar efforts from other journals...（这一政策效仿了**其他期刊**的类似做法）”。这说明学术期刊界都在加强对统计学的审查。B选项“期刊正在加强它们的统计检查”是对这两句话最准确的概括。A选项“简化（simplify）”与原文“增加（adding）”相反。

32. [C] marked.
【解析】词义推测题。第二段说：“Manuscript will be **flagged up** for additional scrutiny...”（手稿将被 flagged up，以供内部编辑、现有审查委员会或外部同行评议者进行**额外审查**）。在英语中，flag 作为动词有“标记/标出”的意思（就像插上一面小红旗以引起注意），以供后续处理。C 选项 marked（标记）完美契合语境。

33. [D] set an example for other journals.
【解析】细节题。第四段末尾，Giovanni Parmigiani 表示，设立 SBoRE 的影响不仅限于《科学》杂志本身，“hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that may want to **model their approach after Science**”（希望通过更多可能想要**效仿《科学》的方法**的出版机构来产生影响）。这说明他认为《科学》的这一举措会“为其他期刊树立榜样（set an example for other journals）”。

34. [C] has room for further improvement.
【解析】细节推断题。最后一段中，David Vaux 说《科学》杂志把论文转给统计学家的想法“has some merit, but a **weakness** is that...”（有一定价值，但**弱点**在于：它依赖评审编辑委员会首先去识别哪些论文需要审查）。既然指出了这一举措存在 weakness（弱点/不足），就说明它并不完美，还有“进一步改进的空间（has room for further improvement）”。

35. [A] Science Joins Push to Screen Statistics in Papers
【解析】主旨题。文章第一段开门见山指出：《科学》（Science）杂志加入其他期刊的行列，在其同行评审过程中增加了统计学审查。全文随后围绕这一政策的实施（设立 SBoRE）、背景原因（提高可重复性）以及各方学者的评价（支持与不足）展开论述。A 选项“《科学》杂志加入审查论文中统计数据的运动（Push）”是对全文核心事件的最准确、最全面概括。

考研核心句型与长难句

【长难句剖析】

1. 同位语从句与现在分词作定语：
"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."
【解析】that 引导同位语从句，具体解释 concern 的内容。contributing to 意为“导致/促成”；irreproducibility（不可重复性）是本文的核心探讨痛点。

2. 并列宾语与定语从句：
"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."
【解析】found + 宾语 (the foresight...) + 宾语补足语 (to be novel, unique and likely to...) 结构。指出了专家愿意加入审查委员会的三个原因。

3. 引语中的复杂并列结构：
"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”."
【解析】engaging... 是现在分词短语作方式状语。engaging 后接了两个并列的宾语 reviewers 和 editors，并且每个宾语后面都跟着一个由 who 引导的定语从句来进行限制修饰。