Directions: In the passage given below there are 10 blanks. Every blank has five alternative words given in options (A),(B),(C), (D) and (E). You have to tell which word is inappropriate according to the context. Mark that inappropriate word as your answer.
Many scientific studies are _1_. Often, the reason is poor methodology. Sometimes, it is _2_ fraud. The conventional means of correction—a letter to the journal concerned—can take months. But there is now an alternative. PubPeer is a website that lets people comment anonymously on research papers and so, in theory, helps _3_ the scientific literature of erroneous findings more speedily.
Since its launch in 2012, PubPeer has alerted scientists to mistakes and image manipulation in papers, and exposed cases of misconduct. But it has also attracted criticism, not least from journal editors, some of whom argue anonymity’s _4_ lets vendettas flourish unchecked. Now the site is _5_ in a court case that tests the limits of free speech under America’s First Amendment, and may define what it is permissible for researchers to say online and anonymously about science.
The proceedings centre on discussions that began on the site in November 2013. These highlighted apparent similarities between images showing the results of different experiments in papers by Fazlul Sarkar, a cancer researcher who was then based at Wayne State University in Detroit. Dr Sarkar alleges that certain commenters _6_ he was guilty of scientific fraud. The comments, he says, together with anonymous e-mails sent to the University of Mississippi, cost him the offer of a professorship there. In October 2014 he _7_ the commenters for defamation and subpoenaed PubPeer to disclose their identities. A court is now expected to decide whether the site will be forced to do so.
The American Civil Liberties Union has taken on the case on PubPeer’s behalf. Its lawyer, Alex Abdo, says that the anonymity of PubPeer’s commenters is protected by American law unless Dr Sarkar can provide evidence that their statements are false and have damaged his reputation. Evidence filed by PubPeer from John Krueger, an image-analysis expert, states the images in question “did not depict different experiments as they _8_ to” or contained other “irregularities”, and may have been manipulated. Mr Abdo asserts that the comments identified by Dr Sarkar are not defamatory. Therefore PubPeer should not be forced to disclose the commenters’ identities.
By contrast, Dr Sarkar’s lawyer, Nick Roumel, argues the law should not provide anonymous commenters with more protection than it gives those who post _9_ their real names. It is impossible to contact PubPeer’s commenters to establish what they know about the _10_ without knowing their identities, he says.
- A) deficient
- A) complete
- A) exterminate
- A) wrap
- A) entangled
- A) subtle
- A) indicted
- A) putative
E) None of these
- A) under
- A) citations