搜题请搜索小程序“爱下问搜题”
问题 听力题

小题1:Unlike traditional park, t________ parks often want to teach visitors something.

小题2:As you ________ (接近) the school the first building you see is the teaching building.

小题3:When in conferences, he often leaves for v________ reasons.

小题4: Here I would r__________ our school’s Students Union to give you a warm welcome.

小题5: Could you e_________ the child to make him happy for an hour, while I make dinner?

小题6: To my a_________, he did the difficult job well.

小题7: After a long s_______, he gained control of the business.

小题8:Our foreign trade has e_________ greatly in recent years, increasing from 1,000 billion dollars to 2,500 billion dollars a year.

小题9: I was _______（资助）by my parents when I was studying at collage.

小题10: We have been told to show ______（尊敬）for our elders.

答案

小题1:theme    

小题1: approach    

小题1: various    

小题1: represents  

小题1:entertain

小题1:astonishment  

小题1: struggle   

小题1: expanded  

小题1:supported 

小题1: repect

略

单项选择题

下列哪一项不符合新生儿肺透明膜病的肺部X线表现（）

A.两肺野透亮度普遍降低

B.均匀散在的细颗粒和网状阴影

C.支气管充气征

D.部分肺泡代偿性气肿

E.严重病例呈"白肺"
查看答案
单项选择题

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 to career success. The questions are whether Nature and Science have become too powerful as arbiters of what science reaches to the public, and whether the journals are up to their task as gatekeepers.

Each scientific specialty has its own set of journals. Physicists have Physical Review Letters, neuroscientists have Neuron, and so forth. Science and Nature, though, are the only two major journals that cover the gamut of scientific disciplines, from meteorology and zoology to quantum physics and chemistry. As a result, journalists look to them each week for the cream of the crop of new science papers. And scientists look to the journals in part to reach journalists. Why do they care Competition for grants has gotten so fierce that scientists have sought popular renown to gain an edge over their rivals. Publication in specialized journals will win the acclaims from academics and satisfy the publish-or-perish imperative, but Science and Nature come with the added bonus of potentially getting your paper written up in The New York Times and other publications.

Scientists tend to pay more attention to the big two than to other journals. When more scientists know about a particular paper, they’re more apt to cite it in their own papers. Being oft-cited will increase a scientist’s "Impact Factor", a measure of how often papers are cited by peers. Funding agencies use the "Impact Factor" as a rough measure of the influence of scientists they’re considering supporting.

Scientists know that by reaching the journalists for Science and Nature they would get a better chance to ().

A. have more of their papers published in the journals in the future

B. have their names appear in many other renown publications

C. have their research results understood by the general public

D. have their superiors give them monetary award for the publication
查看答案