s="" "piltdown="" man"="" confused="" the="" scientific="" community="" for="" 40="" years="" until="" it="" was="" discovered="" that="" skull="" only="" 500="" old="" rather="" than="" 500,000,="" and="" jawbone="" of="" an="" orangutan.="" in="" other="" instances="" misconduct,="" data="" journals="" has="" been="" inadequately="" documented="" or="" improperly="" reported="" cases="" misconduct="" are="" rare="" but="" important="" because="" publicity="" they="" receive="" once="" discovered,="" eroding="" public's="" trust="" peer-review="" system="" science="" itself.="" to="" keep="" this="" type="" conduct="" check,="" articles="" include="" detailed="" descriptions="" experimental="" protocols="" enable="" others="" reproduce="" experiments. 1.Scientific journals make for reliable reading owing to （ ）. 2.Qualified peer reviewers （ ）. 3.According to the passage, which of the following statements is true? 4.It can be inferred that scientific journals （ ）. 5.Scientific misconduct（ ）.'>
Scientific journals can provide reliable information because of the process called "peer review "，in which other scientists(peers) evaluate the value and credibility of research before allowing it to appear in print.Peer-review is performed by knowledgeable scientists who are not directly involved with the research being evaluated. In fact, reviewers are often scientific competitors. To remove any bias from the review process, most manuscripts (articles prior to publication) are considered by three reviewers independently. Reviewers consider the validity of the approach, the significance and originality of the finding, its interest and timeliness to the scientific community, and the clarity of the writing. Reviewers then provide feedback on the manuscript they have read. Journal editors rely on peer-review feedback to guide their publication decisions, and authors use reviewers comments to refine the text of their manuscript and the experiments within. Journal editors must occasionally resolve issues related to conflict of interest among reviewers; reviewers identities are generally not revealed to manuscript authors. This later rule is intended to free reviewers from any social pressures, allowing them to consider only the quality of the science before them.Reviewers are expected to keep the information in a manuscript confidential until it is published, but it is rare that the work comes as a complete surprise to the entire scientific community. This is because peer review is integrated into almost every step of science.Most research scientists request public funding for their experiments. Funding decisions are made by a committee of other scientists who debate each proposal’s likelihood of success, the validity of its approach, and the importance of the question being asked. Once funded, the experiments can begin, and preliminary data is often revealed at scientific meetings. This allows the findings to be debated and defended with colleagues prior to publication. Once the experiments are completed, a manuscript is written and circulated to all those who contributed to the work. Manuscripts commonly undergo several rounds of revision by the authors before being submitted to a journal for peer review, Journals vary in their selectivity and focus. Consequently, manuscripts are first sent to the most widely read journal likely to publish the work. If that journal declines to publish the manuscript, it can be sent to a different journal for consideration.Despite the best efforts of reviewers, cases of scientific misconduct do occur and incorrect or unsubstantiated data does get published. Some cases turn out to be elaborate hoaxes. For example, in 1912 Charles Dawson showed off parts of a skull and jawbone to the public and convinced scientists that the fossils represented the missing link between man and ape Dawson's "Piltdown Man" confused the scientific community for 40 years until it was discovered that the skull was only 500 years old rather tha
