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 2 era, federal funds built expensive national facilities, and these served as surfaces on which collaborations could crystallize naturally.

    Yet multiple authorship——however good it may be in other ways——presents problems 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 committees 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.

    附件：Passage 5 譯文與重點(diǎn)詞匯

[FS:PAGE]    撰寫科學(xué)( scientific)論文(paper: thesis)的作者(author: writer)的平均(average: even)人數(shù)在急劇增K。其原兇部分(partly)是岡為實(shí)驗(yàn)室(lab)的規(guī)模更大，問題更加復(fù)雜( complicated: complex. compound)，并且需要更多不同的(different: distinct. varied)附屬專業(yè)。但是，這更是因?yàn)槊绹?guó)政府(government: state)機(jī)構(gòu)(agency: institution，organization)開始宣揚(yáng)(promote: advocate，claim)“團(tuán)隊(duì)科學(xué)”的緣故。隨著二戰(zhàn)之后時(shí)期( era: period，time)內(nèi)物理學(xué)的發(fā)展(develop: expand, grow)，聯(lián)邦( federal)基金(fund: foundation)建造(build: construct，create，put up)了許多昂貴的( expensive：costly)國(guó)有(national：state-owned)設(shè)施(facility: equipment，establishment)，這些給人們提供(serve)了一個(gè)平臺(tái)(surface: exterior)，在此基礎(chǔ)上，協(xié)作( collaboration: cooperation)自然(naturally)就可以明確化。

    然而，多重( multiple: several)作者署名(authorship) -無(wú)論存其他方面可能多么優(yōu)秀——給這些作者所服務(wù)的雜志(journal: magazine)和機(jī)構(gòu)(institution: agency，organization)提出(present: bring. offer)了問題一對(duì)于雜志來(lái)說，長(zhǎng)長(zhǎng)的作者名單(list)讓它們難以(hard：difficult)應(yīng)對(duì)(deal with: cope with.)。但是，當(dāng)作1日l(shuí)出錯(cuò)時(shí)，這長(zhǎng)長(zhǎng)的名單就會(huì)導(dǎo)致( give rise to; lead to. result in)更嚴(yán)重的(serious: fearful，severe)問題。

    如果出現(xiàn)研究( research: investigation. study)錯(cuò)誤(misconduct: error，mistake)，零么該如何住這些作者中明確( allocate: assign. distribute)他們應(yīng)該承擔(dān)的責(zé)任(liability: duty. responsibility)呢?如果作品中的一個(gè)部分而f不是其他部分出現(xiàn)了真正的(honest、real. true)錯(cuò)誤(mistake: error. fault)，那么評(píng)估人員(evaluator: rater)應(yīng)該如何發(fā)表(aim: target)縫或她的評(píng)論(review: comment)呢?

    在有關(guān)這個(gè)話題(issue: theme. topic)長(zhǎng)期存在的(long-standing: lasting)爭(zhēng)論(debate: argue. dispute)中，人們已經(jīng)提出了各種各樣(various)實(shí)際的(practical: actual. factual)和不切實(shí)際的(impractical: unreasonable)建議(suggestion: advice，proposition).其中之一就是：每個(gè)作者都應(yīng)該提供(provide: give，offer. p resent) -份自己對(duì)作品所做出的特定( particular: especial，peculiar .special)貢獻(xiàn)(contribution：dedication)的說啊(account. description, explanation)，雜志隨后應(yīng)該公開發(fā)表(publish: print， release)。但是一旦到了大學(xué)委員會(huì)(committee: commission. council)，涉及到任令 (appointment assignment, designation) 與提拔 (promotion: elevation. improvement)時(shí)，作者署名將變得至關(guān)重要，對(duì)于這個(gè)問題，以及是對(duì)于這個(gè)問題的解　　決方法(solution：answer)，人們就會(huì)產(chǎn)生一種不同的看法(view: idea. opinion)。半輩子牽涉( involvement)這種事情的經(jīng)歷(process: experience. procedure)使我明白作者署名的確關(guān)系重大(matter: significant)。我曾經(jīng)注意到(watch: notice)大學(xué)委員會(huì)試圖( attempt: endeavor. purpose)解釋(decode: explain. interpret)名字的順序( sequence: order)，對(duì)一篇引用(cite: quote)太多的論文判斷其究竟是投稿者( candidate)自己所撰的還是幾人合作所撰的這種事情感到極度痛苦，十足便退回(send：withdraw)推薦(recommendation).以詢問更多有關(guān)責(zé)任(responsibility: duty，liability)分配( division: difference. discrimination)的事情。

[FS:PAGE]    這類問題改變了這種爭(zhēng)論( argument: debate. dispute)，通過要求作者詳細(xì)說明( define: demonstrate .illustrate)他們自己承擔(dān)的任務(wù)(role: function. task)，幫助( support: aid. help)解決了這個(gè)問題(case: issue. problem. question)。畢竟，如果有關(guān)個(gè)體的( individual: personal. private)質(zhì)量(quality)好壞與否是基于(on the basis of)合著者個(gè)人(personal: individual，private)所做出的貢獻(xiàn)的話，那么評(píng)委(judge)們就可以更清楚造了解他們都做了什么.但是，如果整個(gè)( whole: entire，total)作品的正確性(validity. correctness，rightness)出了(arise: appear，emerge. occur)問題，那么不管是作為對(duì)其行為( conduct: action, activity，behavior)的挑戰(zhàn)(challenge: defy)還是作為對(duì)其所在領(lǐng)域( field: area. scope)產(chǎn)生的影響(influence: effect. impact)的評(píng)估evaluation assessment，estimate)，團(tuán)隊(duì)就是團(tuán)隊(duì)，其成員(member)應(yīng)該榮(credit glory honor)辱(blame)與共(share. pool)。