The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
The job of a peer reviewer is thankless. Collectively, academics spend around 70 million hours every year evaluating each other’s manuscripts on the behalf of scholarly journals — and they usually receive no monetary compensation and little if any recognition for their effort. Some do it as a way to keep abreast with developments in their field; some simply see it as a duty to the discipline. Either way, academic publishing would likely crumble without them.
In recent years, some scientists have begun posting their reviews online, mainly to claim credit for their work. Sites like Publons allow researchers to either share entire referee reports or simply list the journals for whom they’ve carried out a review….
The rise of Publons suggests that academics are increasingly placing value on the work of peer review and asking others, such as grant funders, to do the same. While that’s vital in the publish-or-perish culture of academia, there’s also immense value in the data underlying peer review. Sharing peer review data could help journals stamp out fraud, inefficiency, and systemic bias in academic publishing.….
Peer review data could also help root out bias. Last year, a study based on peer review data for nearly 24,000 submissions to the biomedical journal eLife found that women and non-Westerners were vastly underrepresented among peer reviewers. Only around one in every five reviewers was female, and less than two percent of reviewers were based in developing countries…. Openly publishing peer review data could perhaps also help journals address another problem in academic publishing: fraudulent peer reviews. For instance, a minority of authors have been known to use phony email addresses to pose as an outside expert and review their own manuscripts.…
Opponents of open peer review commonly argue that confidentiality is vital to the integrity of the review process; referees may be less critical of manuscripts if their reports are published, especially if they are revealing their identities by signing them. Some also hold concerns that open reviewing may deter referees from agreeing to judge manuscripts in the first place, or that they’ll take longer to do so out of fear of scrutiny….
Even when the content of reviews and the identity of reviewers can’t be shared publicly, perhaps journals could share the data with outside researchers for study. Or they could release other figures that wouldn’t compromise the anonymity of reviews but that might answer important questions about how long the reviewing process takes, how many researchers editors have to reach out to on average to find one who will carry out the work, and the geographic distribution of peer reviewers.
Of course, opening up data underlying the reviewing process will not fix peer review entirely, and there may be instances in which there are valid reasons to keep the content of peer reviews hidden and the identity of the referees confidential. But the norm should shift from opacity in all cases to opacity only when necessary.
It can tackle the problem of selecting appropriately qualified reviewers for academic writing.
The passage says sharing peer review data could help journals stamp out fraud, inefficiency and systemic bias in academic publishing.
It gives the eLife finding that women and non-Westerners were underrepresented among reviewers, and it says open data could help with fraudulent reviews, such as authors posing as outside experts to review their own manuscripts.
Nowhere does it claim that open data would help in selecting appropriately qualified reviewers, so this is the reason not given.
Hence, It can tackle the problem of selecting appropriately qualified reviewers for academic writing.
leaves the reviewers unexposed to unwarranted and unjustified criticism or comments from others.
Opponents of open peer review argue that referees may be less critical if their reports are published, that open reviewing may deter referees from agreeing to review, and that they may take longer out of fear of scrutiny.
These match the concerns about reluctance to review, about delays, and about less honest or critical reviews.
The remaining statement says publication leaves reviewers unexposed to unjustified criticism, which is the opposite of the opponents' worry about scrutiny, so it is not one of their reasons.
Hence, leaves the reviewers unexposed to unwarranted and unjustified criticism or comments from others.
greater transparency across the peer review process in academic publishing.
The author argues for sharing peer review data to fight fraud, inefficiency and bias, and suggests ways to share data even when reviews must stay anonymous.
The closing line states that the norm should shift from opacity in all cases to opacity only when necessary.
This is a call for greater openness across the review process; the author does not prefer data over actual reviews, does not discuss screening reviewers for subject knowledge, and accepts confidentiality only where needed.
Hence, greater transparency across the peer review process in academic publishing.
It is seen as an opportunity to expand their influence in the academic community.
The first paragraph says some academics review to keep abreast of developments in their field and some see it as a duty to the discipline.
The second paragraph adds that some post their reviews online, mainly to claim credit for their work.
The passage never says that reviewing is a way to expand one's influence in the academic community.
Hence, It is seen as an opportunity to expand their influence in the academic community.
Similar Questions
Zombie cells may contribute to age-related chronic inflammation: this finding could help scientists understand more about the aging process and why the immune system becomes less effective as we get older. Zombie or “senescent” cells are damaged cells that can no longer divide and grow like normal cells. Scientists think that these cells can contribute to chronic health problems when they accumulate in the body. In younger people, the immune system is more effective at clearing senescent cells from the body through a process called apoptosis, but as we age this process becomes less efficient. As a result, there is an accumulation of senescent cells in different organs in the body, either through increased production or reduced clearance by the immune system. The zombie cells continue to use energy though they do not divide, and often secrete chemicals that cause inflammation, which if persistent for longer periods of time can damage healthy cells leading to chronic diseases.
Identify the odd sentence out and key in the number of that sentence as your answer.
The last paragraph of the passage refers to “middle-class, white, professional men”. Which one of the following qualities best describes the connection among them?
Study the following sets of concepts and identify the set that is conceptually closest to the concerns and arguments of the passage.
According to the passage, who or what was an “alienist”?
“Conversely, when a defendant struck officials as unlike themselves, whether by dint of disease, gender, confession, or race, the precariousness of judgments about mental state was exposed.” Which one of the following best describes the use of the word “confession” in this sentence?
According to the incentive or moral hazard argument, which one of the designs below is most consistent with the claim that some inequality can raise growth?
Which one of the options below best summarises the passage?
The primary function of the three-part case for a positive income inequality–economic growth link in the first half of the passage is to show that:
The passage refers to "democratization". Choose the one option below that comes closest to the opposite of this process.
Important Questions from Non Grammar
- In formulating Principle VI (a), the ILC clarified the term "waging of a war of aggression" because:
- The author attributes the growing public frustration with the UN primarily to which pair of continuous failures?
- A primary point of divergence between the US Conservative position and the Secretary-General's Conservative position on security matters, according to the summary is:
- According to the critique's conclusion, the immediate, insurmountable barrier preventing the implementation of any reform, major or minor, is:
- The Secretary-General's 'Agenda for Peace' proposed a specific military capability intended to address the gap between traditional peace-keeping and full military action. This proposed unit was explicitly characterized by the summary as being:
