Keeping pace with scientific publishing - Test 1

C1 Advanced · Multiple Choice Reading · Cambridge English Advanced 3, Cambridge University Press

You are going to read an article in which a science correspondent considers old and new ways of publishing scientific research. For questions 1–6, choose the answer (A, B, C or D) which you think fits best according to the text.

Science correspondent Joe Cushing considers old and new ways of publishing scientific research Journal-based peer review – the process of subjecting a scientific research paper to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field – is generally held up as the quality assurance mechanism for research. It professes to be an essential filter which prevents publishing flawed or nonsensical papers, and indeed is often touted as such in reassuring tones when scientists talk to the media or the general public. Reviewing a paper can delay its publication by up to a year; is that a price worth paying to ensure the trustworthiness of the published literature? Well, yes and no. And picking apart such issues reveals a great deal about the state of scientific publishing, which is very much in flux. I'm not yet ready to abandon journal-based peer review. I'd still like to see all papers pass some sort of checking stage before formal publication, but I feel the ground moving. The growing use of preprints (drafts of papers which are posted online without having been peer reviewed, found in digital archives) is a crucial part of that shift because they bring academics back to what research publication is all about: the rapid dissemination of new results so they can be read, critiqued and built upon. Publication in journals has become more about renown and career advancement, and this has perverted both the motivations of authors and the job of reviewers. Competition for prized spots in highly-regarded journals drives scientists to do some of their best work and the best journals certainly publish plenty of outstanding research. But the excessive rewards for publishing in top journals are incentives to corner-cutting, as stories streamlined by the omission of inconvenient data are more likely to be taken up. And the job of the reviewer also becomes distorted: it is more often now to decide, not whether a manuscript is any good, but whether it is good enough for the journal considering publication. For top journals that can depend as much on topicality or newsworthiness as scientific quality. These problems are well known, but the tragedy for science is that too few people are willing to break away from the present system. However, as the eminent biologist Ron Vale argued recently – fittingly, in a preprint – preprints may be a way out of the impasse because they don't entail a major shift away from the norm. That may seem an odd claim in view of the fact that preprint archives have been in existence for twenty years, yet preprints have not been adopted universally. This slow uptake is not only a reflection of the inherent conservatism of scientists, but also a result of the widespread misconception that journals won't accept manuscripts which have been posted online as preprints. There is also a fear that publication of papers without peer review risks opening the floodgates to 'junk science' – something which, so far at least, has yet to occur. Preprints may not be peer reviewed, but authors know full well that preprints are immediately opened up for critique and discussion by a worldwide community of reviewers. Tanya Elks, a psychology professor, recalls: 'My paper was a critique of a published paper – a scenario which isn't well handled by the conventional journals. Under their system of anonymous peer reviewing, either the authors of the original paper are chosen as reviewers and there is a risk that the unscrupulous ones might block a critical paper; or they're not chosen and may justifiably complain about misrepresentation. As we posted a preprint, the original authors had their say and we could take their points on board. All the commentary is out in the open so readers can evaluate the quality of the arguments. The possibility of rejection by journals is less of an issue too, given that we'll still have the preprint and comments out in the public domain, so our work won't be wasted.' Preprint archives enable, on a global scale, the informal scientific discussions once confined to correspondence between individuals. They could also become an effective outlet for negative results – a vital aspect of the scientific process often overlooked by the journals' excessive preoccupation with new discoveries. Furthermore, presence on preprint archives significantly increases the number of times papers are read and cited by others; a potent demonstration of the efficacy of dissemination through preprint. By harnessing the web's culture of openness and accessibility and recalling the collaborative, amateur ethos still at large within the scientific community, preprints should help to refocus attention where it matters – on the work itself, not where it is published.

provoking changes in the process of scientific publishing.

affecting deadlines for publishing scientific papers.

ensuring the quality of scientific research.

reassuring the public about new research.

In the first paragraph, the writer expresses doubt regarding the part that peer review plays in

the absence of peer reviewing with preprints

the original aim of publishing scientific findings

the ulterior motives which lie behind reviewers' comments

the prestige which can be gained by being published in a journal

What does the writer feel that many scientists need to be reminded of?

encouraging scientists to compete against each other

trying to reduce costs in order to maintain their position in the market

relying too heavily on reviewers to decide whether to publish an article

choosing articles for their appeal rather than their scientific value

What does the writer accuse scientific journals of doing?

the idea that it was fitting for biologist Ron Vale to argue his case in a preprint

the assertion that adopting preprints does not require a radical change of behaviour

the notion that too few scientists are pushing for a rethink of the peer review

the suggestion that preprints will be readily accepted by the scientific community

What does the writer admit may be an 'odd claim' in line 45?

Available as a free printable PDF worksheet with an optional answer key.

More C1 Advanced Multiple Choice Reading practice · All C1 Advanced practice