CAT 2024 Slot 2 — VARC Question 15
The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
The job of a peer reviewer is thankless. Collectively, academics spend around 70 million hours every year evaluating each other’s manuscripts on the behalf of scholarly journals — and they usually receive no monetary compensation and little if any recognition for their effort. Some do it as a way to keep abreast with developments in their field; some simply see it as a duty to the discipline. Either way, academic publishing would likely crumble without them.
In recent years, some scientists have begun posting their reviews online, mainly to claim credit for their work. Sites like Publons allow researchers to either share entire referee reports or simply list the journals for whom they’ve carried out a review…. The rise of Publons suggests that academics are increasingly placing value on the work of peer review and asking others, such as grant funders, to do the same. While that’s vital in the publish-or-perish culture of academia, there’s also immense value in the data underlying peer review. Sharing peer review data could help journals stamp out fraud, inefficiency, and systemic bias in academic publishing.….
Peer review data could also help root out bias. Last year, a study based on peer review data for nearly 24,000 submissions to the biomedical journal eLife found that women and non Westerners were vastly underrepresented among peer reviewers. Only around one in every five reviewers was female, and less than two percent of reviewers were based in developing countries…. Openly publishing peer review data could perhaps also help journals address another problem in academic publishing: fraudulent peer reviews. For instance, a minority of authors have been known to use phony email addresses to pose as an outside expert and review their own manuscripts.…
Opponents of open peer review commonly argue that confidentiality is vital to the integrity of the review process; referees may be less critical of manuscripts if their reports are published, especially if they are revealing their identities by signing them. Some also hold concerns that open reviewing may deter referees from agreeing to judge manuscripts in the first place, or that they’ll take longer to do so out of fear of scrutiny…. Even when the content of reviews and the identity of reviewers can’t be shared publicly, perhaps journals could share the data with outside researchers for study. Or they could release other figures that wouldn’t compromise the anonymity of reviews but that might answer important questions about how long the reviewing process takes, how many researchers editors have to reach out to on average to find one who will carry out the work, and the geographic distribution of peer reviewers.
Of course, opening up data underlying the reviewing process will not fix peer review entirely, and there may be instances in which there are valid reasons to keep the content of peer reviews hidden and the identity of the referees confidential. But the norm should shift from opacity in all cases to opacity only when necessary.
There is a sentence that is missing in the paragraph below. Look at the paragraph and decide where (option 1, 2, 3, or 4) the following sentence would best fit.
Sentence: Yet each day the flock produced eggs with calcareous shells though they apparently had not ingested any calcium from land which was entirely lacking in limestone.
Paragraph: Early in this century a young Breton schoolboy who preparing himself for a scientific career began to notice a strange fact about hens in his father's poultry yard. ___(1) ___. As they scratched the soil they constantly seemed to be pecking at specks of mica, a siliceous material dotting the ground. ___(2)___. No one could explain to Louis Kervran why the chickens selected the mica, or why each time a bird was killed for the family cooking pot no trace of the mica could be found in its gizzard. ___(3) ___. It took Kervran many years to establish that the chickens were transmuting one element into another. ___(4)___.
Answer & solution
Option 3
- B
Option 1
- C
Option 2
- D
Option 4
Easy
Insert "Yet each day the flock produced eggs with calcareous shells though they apparently had not ingested any calcium from land entirely lacking in limestone." The "Yet ... calcium ... no limestone" contrast must follow the description of what the hens DID eat (mica, siliceous, not calcium) and set up the puzzle Kervran later solves.
Track the logic. The hens peck mica, "a siliceous material" (blank 2 follows this). Blank (3) follows "no trace of the mica could be found in its gizzard" and precedes "It took Kervran many years to establish that the chickens were transmuting one element into another." The inserted sentence - eggs with calcium-rich (calcareous) shells despite NO calcium intake - is exactly the mystery that motivates the "transmuting one element into another" conclusion. It belongs immediately before that line: Option 3.
Reject the others. Blank (1) is too early (the mica behaviour hasn't been described yet). Blank (2) sits between two mica-pecking observations and would break that run. Blank (4) comes after the transmutation conclusion - too late to pose the puzzle. Only Option 3 links the calcium-paradox to the transmutation payoff.
Option 3 - the calcareous-shell paradox sets up Kervran's transmutation conclusion that immediately follows.