考研题，考研题库网
为了让大家第一时间看到优质考研内容
千万！千万！千万！
记得【星标】或【置顶】考研外刊阅读
每晚21:00，外刊君陪你考研
中国高翻团队倾力之作
全文字数：1646字
阅读时间：15分钟
上期翻译答案
Over 90 percent of plansdidn’t useinclusive processes to design or implement green infrastructure projects, meaning communities targeted for upgrades often didn’t have a chance to weigh in with their needs throughout the process.
然而在设计或实施绿色基础设施项目的过程中有90%以上的规划没有使用包容性流程，这意味着计划升级改造的社区，在整个过程中都没有机会提出他们的需求。
1. weigh in: to join in an argument or fight
《本期内容》
双语阅读
Why did your proposal not receive the funding? Usually, this remains unclear. It may have been a very close call, perhaps too close for reviewers to make a reliable and rational selection of one proposalover another. In fact, you are lucky if you learn what project was funded,let alonehow the selection committee arrived at your assessment.
你的提案为什么没能得到项目经费？通常情况下，原因不明。你的提议可能距离通过非常接近了，但可能过于接近，对审稿人来说，无法在多个提案中做出可靠和理性的选择。事实上，如果你能知道哪个项目得到资金，就已经很幸运了，更不用说评选委员会是怎么评估你的项目的。
To make things worse, the proposals that do end up winning the funding competition are usually rather homogeneous, hailing from the same kinds of institutes, covering the same kinds of topics, and involving the same kinds of eminent researchers. It’s the Matthew Effect at full steam: those who are already at an advantage accumulate more and more advantages, while the disadvantaged grow less and less likely to secure funding.
更糟糕的是，最终赢得资助竞争的提案通常相当同质化，来自同类研究机构，涵盖同类研究主题，并涉及同类杰出的研究人员。这就是马太效应最大化的结果：那些已经处于优势地位的人会积累越来越多的优势，而处于劣势的人获得资金的可能性越来越小。
Not only does this lead to personal disappointment, disillusion, and lost career opportunities, it also harms the research system at large. While many promising innovations have recently been introduced to foster quality, efficiency, and diversity in science—most notably efforts triggered by the open science movement, such as preprints, registered reports, and open peer review—funding practices are notoriously lagging behind. Even though funding agencies increasingly facilitate or mandate open science practices from the projects they fund, their own practices are stillshroudedin clouds of secrecy.
这不仅会导致个人感到失望、希望幻灭，失去职业机会，也会损害整个研究系统。翻译划线句，长按文末小程序码打卡，答案下期公布~尽管资助机构越来越多地敦促或要求它们资助的项目进行公开科学实践，但它们自己的实践仍然笼罩在层层迷雾中。
We argue that research funding agencies should do much more. Specifically, we call on them to experiment with open applications and assessments as well as partial lotteries. We believe these innovations can contribute to more diverse, efficient, and transparent grant allocation. Several funding agencies have recently started experimenting with some of these elements, including the Swiss National Science Foundation and funding agencies collaborating in the RoRI network. These initiatives are a good start, but we believe that greater change is needed.
我们认为，研究资助机构应该承担更多的事。具体来说，我们呼吁他们试验性地开展公开申请及评估，并采取部分中签制。我们相信，这些创新有助于使拨款分配更加多样化、高效和透明。包括瑞士国家科学基金会以及与RoRI网络合作的资助机构在内的一些机构最近开始对其中某些部分开展试验。这些倡议是一个良好的开端，但我们认为还需要更大的变革。
We believe that similar to research processes, funding procedures would benefit from transparency for the sake of quality andtrustworthiness. We argue that the submitted applications, review reports,rebuttals, interviews, deliberations around funding decisions, and all identities of those involved in these steps ought to be disclosed and made publicly available. This will make the decision process fully accountable. We believe that such transparency will lead to fewer errors and less bias and unfair judgement. Furthermore, we expect this to improve the efficiency of funding processes because the conditions of openness will likely result in fewer appeal cases.
我们认为，与研究过程相似，为了项目质量和可信度，拨款程序也将从透明度中获益。我们认为，提交的申请、审查报告、驳回、访谈、围绕拨款决策的讨论，以及所有参与其中的人员身份都应该进行披露和公开。这将让决策过程变得更加可靠。我们相信，保持这样的透明度将减少错误、偏见以及不公正的判断。此外，我们预计这将提高资助过程的效率，因为公开的环境下可能会降低上诉的案例。
本文节选自：The Scientist（科学家）
发布时间：2023.02.01
作者：Serge P. J. M. Horbach；Joeri K. Tijdink；Lex M. Bouter
原文标题：Opinion: A Call for Open Funding Procedures
词汇积累
1.homogeneous
英/ ˌhɒməˈdʒiːniəs /美/ ˌhoʊməˈdʒiːniəs /
adj.同种类的，同性质的；齐性的，齐次的；同形态（固态、液态或气态）的
2.shroud
英/ ʃraʊd /美/ ʃraʊd /
n.裹尸布，寿衣；<文>覆盖物，遮蔽物；（技）护罩，管套；（船桅或中桅的）左右支索，侧支索（shrouds）；（降落伞的）吊伞索（=shroud line）
v.覆盖，隐藏；隐瞒，保密；用布裹（尸体）
3.trustworthiness
英/ ˈtrʌstwɜːðinəs /美/ ˈtrʌstwɜːrðinəs /
n.可信赖；确实性
4.rebuttal
英/ rɪˈbʌtl /美/ rɪˈbʌt(ə)l /
n.反驳；辩驳；反证
词组搭配
1.over another 与另一个（相比较）
2.let alone 更不必说；听任；不打扰
写作句总结
原句：We believe that similar to research processes, funding procedures would benefit from transparency for the sake of quality and trustworthiness.
结构：We believe that similar to sth, A would benefit from B for the sake of C.
我们认为与…类似，为了C，事件A将从B中获益。
例句：We believe that similar to education reform, providing access to quality healthcare would benefit from enhanced organization for the sake of public health.
打卡作业
在草稿纸上翻译文章中的划线句，完成每日的打卡练习！下期推送会公布参考翻译答案，大家一起来学习英语吧~
外刊君为同学们汇总了《经济学人》，戳码回复“J88”，下载pdf源文件。
（戳码回复“J88”）
点击领取1998-2021经济人学杂志PDF，附双语版+词汇
• END •
排版/外刊君
图片/来源网络
中国高翻小组
考研题(考研题库网)
未经允许不得转载：苏州考研网 » 考研题(考研题库网)
