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 译文与重点词汇

[FS:PAGE]    撰写科学( scientific)论文(paper: thesis)的作者(author: writer)的平均(average: even)人数在急剧增K。其原凶部分(partly)是冈为实验室(lab)的规模更大，问题更加复杂( complicated: complex. compound)，并且需要更多不同的(different: distinct. varied)附属专业。但是，这更是因为美国政府(government: state)机构(agency: institution，organization)开始宣扬(promote: advocate，claim)“团队科学”的缘故。随着二战之后时期( era: period，time)内物理学的发展(develop: expand, grow)，联邦( federal)基金(fund: foundation)建造(build: construct，create，put up)了许多昂贵的( expensive：costly)国有(national：state-owned)设施(facility: equipment，establishment)，这些给人们提供(serve)了一个平台(surface: exterior)，在此基础上，协作( collaboration: cooperation)自然(naturally)就可以明确化。

    然而，多重( multiple: several)作者署名(authorship) -无论存其他方面可能多么优秀——给这些作者所服务的杂志(journal: magazine)和机构(institution: agency，organization)提出(present: bring. offer)了问题一对于杂志来说，长长的作者名单(list)让它们难以(hard：difficult)应对(deal with: cope with.)。但是，当作1日l出错时，这长长的名单就会导致( give rise to; lead to. result in)更严重的(serious: fearful，severe)问题。

    如果出现研究( research: investigation. study)错误(misconduct: error，mistake)，零么该如何住这些作者中明确( allocate: assign. distribute)他们应该承担的责任(liability: duty. responsibility)呢?如果作品中的一个部分而f不是其他部分出现了真正的(honest、real. true)错误(mistake: error. fault)，那么评估人员(evaluator: rater)应该如何发表(aim: target)缝或她的评论(review: comment)呢?

    在有关这个话题(issue: theme. topic)长期存在的(long-standing: lasting)争论(debate: argue. dispute)中，人们已经提出了各种各样(various)实际的(practical: actual. factual)和不切实际的(impractical: unreasonable)建议(suggestion: advice，proposition).其中之一就是：每个作者都应该提供(provide: give，offer. p resent) -份自己对作品所做出的特定( particular: especial，peculiar .special)贡献(contribution：dedication)的说啊(account. description, explanation)，杂志随后应该公开发表(publish: print， release)。但是一旦到了大学委员会(committee: commission. council)，涉及到任令 (appointment assignment, designation) 与提拔 (promotion: elevation. improvement)时，作者署名将变得至关重要，对于这个问题，以及是对于这个问题的解　　决方法(solution：answer)，人们就会产生一种不同的看法(view: idea. opinion)。半辈子牵涉( involvement)这种事情的经历(process: experience. procedure)使我明白作者署名的确关系重大(matter: significant)。我曾经注意到(watch: notice)大学委员会试图( attempt: endeavor. purpose)解释(decode: explain. interpret)名字的顺序( sequence: order)，对一篇引用(cite: quote)太多的论文判断其究竟是投稿者( candidate)自己所撰的还是几人合作所撰的这种事情感到极度痛苦，十足便退回(send：withdraw)推荐(recommendation).以询问更多有关责任(responsibility: duty，liability)分配( division: difference. discrimination)的事情。

[FS:PAGE]    这类问题改变了这种争论( argument: debate. dispute)，通过要求作者详细说明( define: demonstrate .illustrate)他们自己承担的任务(role: function. task)，帮助( support: aid. help)解决了这个问题(case: issue. problem. question)。毕竟，如果有关个体的( individual: personal. private)质量(quality)好坏与否是基于(on the basis of)合著者个人(personal: individual，private)所做出的贡献的话，那么评委(judge)们就可以更清楚造了解他们都做了什么.但是，如果整个( whole: entire，total)作品的正确性(validity. correctness，rightness)出了(arise: appear，emerge. occur)问题，那么不管是作为对其行为( conduct: action, activity，behavior)的挑战(challenge: defy)还是作为对其所在领域( field: area. scope)产生的影响(influence: effect. impact)的评估evaluation assessment，estimate)，团队就是团队，其成员(member)应该荣(credit glory honor)辱(blame)与共(share. pool)。