NinetynineCAT 2024 Slot 2 VARC RC Passage 1 Q2–Q5
A reading comprehension passage from the Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension (VARC) section of CAT 2024 Slot 2, with 4 questions (RC · Society, History & Politics). Answers are CAT's official key.
The passage
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.
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.
Question 2
Based on the passage we can infer that the author would most probably support
- Apublicising peer review data rather than the publication of actual reviews.
- Bpreserving the anonymity of reviewers to protect them from criticism.
- Cmore careful screening to ensure the recruitment of content-familiar peer reviewers.
- Dgreater transparency across the peer review process in academic publishing.
Answer: (D) greater transparency across the peer review process in academic publishing. RC · Society, History & Politics MCQ
Solution
- The author closes with 'the norm should shift from opacity in all cases to opacity only when necessary', and argues that sharing peer review data can tackle fraud, inefficiency and bias.
- D, greater transparency across peer review, is exactly this position.
- A is too narrow: sharing aggregate data is offered only as a fallback 'even when' reviews cannot be published, not as preferable to publishing reviews. B is the opponents' view, and C is never discussed.
Question 3
According to the passage, which of the following is the only reason NOT given in favour of making peer review data public?
- AIt can tackle the problem of selecting appropriately qualified reviewers for academic writing.
- BIt would highlight the gender and race biases currently existing in the selection of reviewers.
- CIt will deal with peer review fraud such as authors publishing bogus reviews of their work.
- DIt could address various inefficiencies and fraudulent practices that continue in academic publishing process.
Answer: (A) It can tackle the problem of selecting appropriately qualified reviewers for academic writing. RC · Society, History & Politics MCQ
Solution
- Reasons given for sharing data: stamp out 'fraud, inefficiency, and systemic bias' (D), expose under-representation of women and non-Westerners among reviewers (B), and catch authors who pose as reviewers of their own work (C).
- Nothing is said about using the data to select appropriately qualified reviewers, so A is the reason not given.
- B may look shaky because of 'race', but the eLife finding on non-Western reviewers is the bias the passage points to.
Question 4
According to the passage, some are opposed to making peer reviews public for all the following reasons EXCEPT that it
- Adelays the manuscript evaluation process as reviewers would take longer to write their reviews.
- Bmakes reviewers reluctant to review manuscripts, especially if these are critical of the submitted work.
- Cleaves the reviewers unexposed to unwarranted and unjustified criticism or comments from others.
- Ddeters reviewers from producing honest, if critical, reviews that are vital to the sound publishing process.
Answer: (C) leaves the reviewers unexposed to unwarranted and unjustified criticism or comments from others. RC · Society, History & Politics MCQ
Solution
- Opponents argue: referees may be less critical if reports are published (D), open reviewing may deter referees from agreeing to review (B), and they may take longer out of fear of scrutiny (A).
- C says open review leaves reviewers 'unexposed' to criticism, which is the opposite of the opponents' fear (exposure to scrutiny). So it is not one of their reasons.
Shortcut. Watch for an option that flips the direction of a stated concern.
Question 5
All of the following are listed as reasons why academics choose to review other scholars' work EXCEPT:
- AIt is seen as a form of service to the academic community.
- BIt helps them keep current with cutting-edge ideas in their academic disciplines.
- CIt is seen as an opportunity to expand their influence in the academic community.
- DSome use this as an opportunity to publicise their own review work.
Answer: (C) It is seen as an opportunity to expand their influence in the academic community. RC · Society, History & Politics MCQ
Solution
- Paragraph 1: some review 'to keep abreast with developments in their field' (B), some 'see it as a duty to the discipline' (A). Paragraph 2: some post their reviews online 'to claim credit for their work' (D).
- Expanding influence in the academic community (C) is never mentioned, so it is the exception.