. 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 Ⅱ 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 committee 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. 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.1. According to the passage, there is a tendency that scientific papers ______.

如图所示圆轴直径d=6cm，l=2m，左端固定，右端有一直径D=40cm的鼓轮。轮上绕以钢绳

Floyd工业公司股票贝塔值为1.50，公司刚刚支付了0.80美元的股利

17. 狼疮性肾炎的特征性病变是______

7. 人类学家根据原始人类体质形态的进化程度，将原始群时期的人类分为______。

We shouldn't treat children as peers or friends

41. 仙方活命饮与普济消毒饮两方均含有的药物是

A.肱骨髁上伸直型骨折B.肱骨干骨折C.尺骨上1/3骨折D.肱骨髁上骨折晚期E.桡骨远端骨折

11. 不符合血栓结局的描述是______

8.

44. 下列哪项不是正中神经损伤的临床表现

10. 鉴别食管炎与早期食管癌的主要方法是______

下列化合物中，发生SN1和SN2反应均容易的是______

2. 挪用公款给他人使用的，使用人在下列哪些情况下，构成挪用公款罪的共犯?______

A.疝囊高位结扎术B.Ferguson法C.Bassini法D.Halsted法E.McVay法

5. 鸡血藤、当归皆可用治

4. 如果PCR反应出现非特异性扩增条带，可以采取的措施是：

股市融资既有资金放大效应，也有赔本的可能，一股民融资10万元，本钱10万元，全部用于购买股票

疯牛病在牛群中具有很强的传染性。但是，处于潜伏期的病牛是否同样具有传染性?这一问题的目前并不确定

36. 手部创口清创处理，一般不迟于伤后