刷题刷出新高度，偷偷领先！偷偷领先！偷偷领先！ 关注我们，悄悄成为最优秀的自己！
单选题
A poll of Nature's readers suggests that feelings about metrics are mixed.Many researchers say that, in principle, they welcome the use of quantitative performance metrics because of the potential for clarity and objectivity.Yet they also worry that the hiring, promotion and tenure committees that control their fate will ignore crucial but hard-to-quantify aspects of scientific performance such as mentor ship and collaboration building,and instead focus exclusively on a handful of easy-to-measure numbers related mostly to their publication and citation rates.
Academic administrators contacted by Nature suggest that this fear may be exaggerated.Most institutions seem to take a gratifyingly nuanced approach to hiring and tenure decisions, relying less on numbers and more on wide-ranging,qualitative assessments of a candidate's performance made by experts in the relevant field.
Yet such enlightenednuancing cannot be taken for granted.Numbers can be surprisingly seductive, and evaluation committees need to guard against letting a superficial precision undermine their time-consuming assessment of a scientist's full body of work.This is particularly true in countries such as Britain, where metrics-heavy national assessments of universities can trickle down, so that individuals feel more rewarded for quantity than for quality--and change theirbehavior to match.
New measures of scientific impact are being developed all the time, in part driven by government agencies looking to quantify the results they are getting for their investment.Such innovation is to be encouraged.But researchers must be mindful of how and why the metrics they are making are being used.There needs to be much discussion between specialists such as social scientists, economists and scientometricians to ensure that metrics development goes hand-in-hand with a discussion of what the metrics are for, and how they are affecting people.Only then can good suggestions be made about how to improve the system.
Academic administrators, conversely, need to understand what the various metrics can and cannot tell them.Many measures—including the classic"impact factor" that attempts to describe a journal's influence—were not designed to assess individual scientists.Yet people still sometimes try to apply them in that way.Given that scientometricians continue to devise metrics of ever-increasing sophistication, universities and scientific societies need to help decision-makers keep abreast.Setting a good example is the European Summer School for Scientometrics, a program that is being inaugurated in Berlin.It promises a science-based approach to tutoring on the merits and pitfalls of various metrics.
Institutions must also ensure that they give their researchers a clear and complete picture of how assessments are made.This can be awkward—but transparency is essential：no matter how earnestly evaluation committees say that they are assessing the full body of a scientist's work, not being open about the criteria breeds the impression that a fixed number of publications is a strict requirement, that teaching is undervalued and that service to the community is worthless.Such impressions do more than breed discontent--they alter the way that scientists behave.To promote good science, those doors must be opened wide.
What will relieve researchers of their worries according to the passage?
A
B
C
D
使用微信搜索喵呜刷题，轻松应对考试！
答案：
解析：
文章提到大多数机构在招聘和晋升决策时，都倾向于采用更定性、更细致的评估方法，依赖专家的定性评估而不是仅仅依赖数字。这表明委员会更加重视定性表现，因此选项B“定性表现更受委员会重视”是正确的答案。
创作类型：
原创
本文链接：What will relieve researchers of their worries acc
版权声明：本站点所有文章除特别声明外，均采用 CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 许可协议。转载请注明文章出处。让学习像火箭一样快速，微信扫码，获取考试解析、体验刷题服务，开启你的学习加速器！
分享考题 
