[单项选择]Jan Hendrik Schon’s success seemed too good to be true, and it was. In only four years as a physicist at Bell Laboratories, Schon, 32, had co-authored 90 scientific papers — one every 16 days, which astonished his colleagues, and made them suspicious. When one co-worker noticed that the same table of data appeared in two separate papers — which also happened to appear in the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world, Science and Nature — the jig was up. In October 2002, a Bell Labs investigation found that Schon had falsified and fabricated data. His career as a scientist was finished.
If it sounds a lot like the fall of Hwang Woo Suk — the South Korean researcher who fabricated his evidence about cloning human cells — it is. Scientific scandals, which are as old as science itself, tend to follow similar patterns of hubris and comeuppance. Afterwards, colleagues wring their hands and wonder how such malfeasance can be avoided in the future. But it never is entirely.
A. change its basic evaluation process
B. sue Hwang Woo Suk
C. have more thorough scrutiny of photographs for fraud
D. ensure scientific validity of papers by replicating the experiments

[单项选择]Jan Hendrik Schon’s success seemed too good to be true, and it was. In only four years as a physicist at Bell Laboratories, Schon, 32, had co-authored 90 scientific papers — one every 16 days, which astonished his colleagues, and made them suspicious. When one co-worker noticed that the same table of data appeared in two separate papers — which also happened to appear in the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world, Science and Nature — the jig was up. In October 2002, a Bell Labs investigation found that Schon had falsified and fabricated data. His career as a scientist was finished.
If it sounds a lot like the fall of Hwang Woo Suk — the South Korean researcher who fabricated his evidence about cloning human cells — it is. Scientific scandals, which are as old as science itself, tend to follow similar patterns of hubris and comeuppance. Afterwards, colleagues wring their hands and wonder how such malfeasance can be avoided in the future. But it never is entirely.
A. Key scientific journals are authoritative in evaluating scientific papers.
B. Peer-review is the most effective method in evaluating and selecting scientific papers.
C. Scientists are less likely to achieve career success without publications in top papers.
D. Fabricating evidence in scientific researches can be discovered by evaluation strict enoug

[单项选择]

Jan Hendrik Schon’s success seemed too good to be true, and it was. In only four years as a physicist at Bell Laboratories, Schon, 32, had co-authored 90 scientific papers—one every 16 days—detailing new discoveries in superconductivity, lasers, nanotechnology and quantum physics. This output astonished his colleagues, and made them suspicious. When one co-worker noticed that the same table of data appeared in two separate papers—which also happened to appear in the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world, Science and Nature—the jig was up. In October 2002, a Bell Labs investigation found that Schon had falsified and fabricated data. His career as a scientist was finished. Scientific scandals, which are as old as science itself, tend to follow similar patterns of presumption and due reward.
In recent years, of course, the pressure on scientists to publish in the top journals has increased, making the journals much more crucial t
A. surprising
B. inconceivable
C. praiseworthy
D. fraudulent

[单项选择]