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 譯文與重點詞匯

[FS:PAGE]    撰寫科學( scientific)論文(paper: thesis)的作者(author: writer)的平均(average: even)人數在急劇增K。其原兇部分(partly)是岡為實驗室(lab)的規模更大，問題更加復雜( complicated: complex. compound)，并且需要更多不同的(different: distinct. varied)附屬專業。但是，這更是因為美國政府(government: state)機構(agency: institution，organization)開始宣揚(promote: advocate，claim)“團隊科學”的緣故。隨著二戰之后時期( era: period，time)內物理學的發展(develop: expand, grow)，聯邦( federal)基金(fund: foundation)建造(build: construct，create，put up)了許多昂貴的( expensive：costly)國有(national：state-owned)設施(facility: equipment，establishment)，這些給人們提供(serve)了一個平臺(surface: exterior)，在此基礎上，協作( collaboration: cooperation)自然(naturally)就可以明確化。

    然而，多重( multiple: several)作者署名(authorship) -無論存其他方面可能多么優秀——給這些作者所服務的雜志(journal: magazine)和機構(institution: agency，organization)提出(present: bring. offer)了問題一對于雜志來說，長長的作者名單(list)讓它們難以(hard：difficult)應對(deal with: cope with.)。但是，當作1日l出錯時，這長長的名單就會導致( give rise to; lead to. result in)更嚴重的(serious: fearful，severe)問題。

    如果出現研究( research: investigation. study)錯誤(misconduct: error，mistake)，零么該如何住這些作者中明確( allocate: assign. distribute)他們應該承擔的責任(liability: duty. responsibility)呢?如果作品中的一個部分而f不是其他部分出現了真正的(honest、real. true)錯誤(mistake: error. fault)，那么評估人員(evaluator: rater)應該如何發表(aim: target)縫或她的評論(review: comment)呢?

    在有關這個話題(issue: theme. topic)長期存在的(long-standing: lasting)爭論(debate: argue. dispute)中，人們已經提出了各種各樣(various)實際的(practical: actual. factual)和不切實際的(impractical: unreasonable)建議(suggestion: advice，proposition).其中之一就是：每個作者都應該提供(provide: give，offer. p resent) -份自己對作品所做出的特定( particular: especial，peculiar .special)貢獻(contribution：dedication)的說啊(account. description, explanation)，雜志隨后應該公開發表(publish: print， release)。但是一旦到了大學委員會(committee: commission. council)，涉及到任令 (appointment assignment, designation) 與提拔 (promotion: elevation. improvement)時，作者署名將變得至關重要，對于這個問題，以及是對于這個問題的解　　決方法(solution：answer)，人們就會產生一種不同的看法(view: idea. opinion)。半輩子牽涉( involvement)這種事情的經歷(process: experience. procedure)使我明白作者署名的確關系重大(matter: significant)。我曾經注意到(watch: notice)大學委員會試圖( attempt: endeavor. purpose)解釋(decode: explain. interpret)名字的順序( sequence: order)，對一篇引用(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).以詢問更多有關責任(responsibility: duty，liability)分配( division: difference. discrimination)的事情。

[FS:PAGE]    這類問題改變了這種爭論( argument: debate. dispute)，通過要求作者詳細說明( define: demonstrate .illustrate)他們自己承擔的任務(role: function. task)，幫助( support: aid. help)解決了這個問題(case: issue. problem. question)。畢竟，如果有關個體的( individual: personal. private)質量(quality)好壞與否是基于(on the basis of)合著者個人(personal: individual，private)所做出的貢獻的話，那么評委(judge)們就可以更清楚造了解他們都做了什么.但是，如果整個( whole: entire，total)作品的正確性(validity. correctness，rightness)出了(arise: appear，emerge. occur)問題，那么不管是作為對其行為( conduct: action, activity，behavior)的挑戰(challenge: defy)還是作為對其所在領域( field: area. scope)產生的影響(influence: effect. impact)的評估evaluation assessment，estimate)，團隊就是團隊，其成員(member)應該榮(credit glory honor)辱(blame)與共(share. pool)。