Comprehension
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: 1
All of the following are listed as reasons why academics choose to review other scholars’ work EXCEPT:
All of the following are listed as reasons why academics choose to review other scholars’ work EXCEPT:
Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
- It is seen as an opportunity to expand their influence in the academic community.
- Some use this as an opportunity to publicise their own review work.
- It is seen as a form of service to the academic community.
- It helps them keep current with cutting-edge ideas in their academic disciplines.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The given passage discusses the reasons academics engage in peer review, emphasizing service to the academic community and staying informed about new developments. It also notes that some use platforms like Publons to publicize their reviews for credit, indicating a shift in recognizing the value of peer reviews.
Analyzing the provided options against this context, we identify the correct exception:
- Opportunity to expand influence: Not directly mentioned or supported as a reason in the passage. Correct choice as the exception.
- Publicizing review work: Addressed in the passage with reference to Publons.
- Form of service: Explicitly mentioned as a reason for peer reviewing.
- Keeping current with ideas: Cited as a motive for participating in peer review.
Therefore, the statement "It is seen as an opportunity to expand their influence in the academic community" does not align with the rationale presented in the passage and is the correct exception.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
According to the passage, some are opposed to making peer reviews public for all the following reasons EXCEPT that it
According to the passage, some are opposed to making peer reviews public for all the following reasons EXCEPT that it
Updated On: Nov 13, 2025
- makes reviewers reluctant to review manuscripts, especially if these are critical of the submitted work.
- delays the manuscript evaluation process as reviewers would take longer to write their reviews.
- deters reviewers from producing honest, if critical, reviews that are vital to the sound publishing process.
- leaves the reviewers unexposed to unwarranted and unjustified criticism or comments from others.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The passage discusses the pros and cons of open peer review, emphasizing that confidentiality is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the process. Critics of open peer review argue against making it public due to several reasons. To determine the correct answer, we examine the given options and identify the one not mentioned in the passage as a reason for opposition.
1. Makes reviewers reluctant to review manuscripts, especially if these are critical of the submitted work: The passage indicates that referees might be less critical if their reports are published, implying that revealing reviews publicly could deter them from providing honest feedback.
2. Delays the manuscript evaluation process as reviewers would take longer to write their reviews: The passage mentions the concern that open reviewing might cause delays as referees would take more time out of fear of scrutiny.
3. Deters reviewers from producing honest, if critical, reviews that are vital to the sound publishing process: This aligns with the argument that openness could lead to less critical reviews, as referees may hesitate to be honest if their identities are public.
4. Leaves the reviewers unexposed to unwarranted and unjustified criticism or comments from others: This option is not supported by the passage. In fact, open peer review could lead to exposure and criticism, not the opposite.
Given these assessments, the statement "leaves the reviewers unexposed to unwarranted and unjustified criticism or comments from others" is the correct answer as it is not a reason mentioned in the passage for opposing open peer review.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
Based on the passage we can infer that the author would most probably support
Based on the passage we can infer that the author would most probably support
Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
- greater transparency across the peer review process in academic publishing.
- preserving the anonymity of reviewers to protect them from criticism.
- publicising peer review data rather than the publication of actual reviews.
- more careful screening to ensure the recruitment of content-familiar peer reviewers.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The passage discusses the importance of peer review in academic publishing and highlights opportunities for improvements through greater transparency. It specifically mentions the potential benefits of sharing peer review data to combat fraud, inefficiency, and bias. The author argues for a shift in the norm from general opacity to openness, except when confidentiality is necessary. While the author acknowledges the challenges and opposition to open peer review, the emphasis is on the benefits of transparency.
The correct inference is: greater transparency across the peer review process in academic publishing.
| Options | Analysis |
| greater transparency across the peer review process in academic publishing. | This option aligns with the author's argument for using peer review data to increase transparency and address systemic issues in publishing. |
| preserving the anonymity of reviewers to protect them from criticism. | The author discusses anonymity but mainly in the context of opposition arguments, not as a preferred stance. |
| publicising peer review data rather than the publication of actual reviews. | The author does suggest sharing data while maintaining confidentiality in some cases, but this isn't the primary support. |
| more careful screening to ensure the recruitment of content-familiar peer reviewers. | Not directly supported by the passage, which focuses more on transparency. |
The correct inference is: greater transparency across the peer review process in academic publishing.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
According to the passage, which of the following is the only reason NOT given in favour of making peer review data public?
According to the passage, which of the following is the only reason NOT given in favour of making peer review data public?
Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
- It will deal with peer review fraud such as authors publishing bogus reviews of their work.
- It could address various inefficiencies and fraudulent practices that continue in academic publishing process.
- It can tackle the problem of selecting appropriately qualified reviewers for academic writing.
- It would highlight the gender and race biases currently existing in the selection of reviewers.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The passage elaborates on the benefits and limitations of making peer review data public. It primarily argues for openness to combat fraud, inefficiency, and bias within the academic publishing process. Let's evaluate each option to determine which reason is not mentioned in the passage:
- It will deal with peer review fraud such as authors publishing bogus reviews of their work.The passage explicitly mentions that open peer review data could help combat fraudulent peer reviews, such as authors using phony identities to review their work.
- It could address various inefficiencies and fraudulent practices that continue in the academic publishing process.The text clearly states that sharing peer review data could help eliminate inefficiency and fraud in academic publishing.
- It can tackle the problem of selecting appropriately qualified reviewers for academic writing.This option is not addressed in the passage. The text does not discuss the use of peer review data for improving the selection of qualified reviewers.
- It would highlight the gender and race biases currently existing in the selection of reviewers.The passage provides evidence that public peer review data could bring attention to gender and race bias, as it cites underrepresentation of women and non-Westerners.
After analyzing the options, the correct answer is:
It can tackle the problem of selecting appropriately qualified reviewers for academic writing.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top CAT Questions
- Compare and contrast between Portia and Jessica characters in Merchant of Venice.
- In a triangle ABC,AB=AC=8cm. A circle drawn with BC as diameter passes through A. Another circle drawn with center at A passes through B and C. Then the area,in sq.cm,of the overlapping region between the two circles is
- The simple interest accrued on an amount of Rs.25,000 at the end of three years is Rs.7,500. What would be the compound interest accrued on the same amount at the same rate in the same period?
- What is the sum of all roots of the equation \(|x+4|^2–10|x+4|=24\)?
- A solid metal sphere is melted and smaller spheres of equal radii are formed. 10% of the volume of the sphere is lost in the process. The smaller spheres have a radius which is \(\frac{1}{9}\text{th}\) the larger sphere. If 10 litres of paint were needed to paint the larger sphere,how many litres are needed to paint all the smaller spheres?
View More Questions