听力文本

This is Scientific American's 60-second Science. I'm Jason Goldman.
In 2018 biologist Jann Vendetti published a paper that described the discovery of five species of non-native snails and slugs in Southern California. The research would not have been possible without some 1,200 volunteers who uploaded nearly 10,000 photos of gastropods to the SLIME project—that's Snails and Slugs Living in Metropolitan Environments—on an app called iNaturalist.
"So the entire existence of that paper is dependent upon these citizen scientists. How do you credit those people?"
Greg Pauly, herpetology curator at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles.
"There are some very specific requirements that a lot of journals and a lot of academic societies use. And those requirements largely would exclude nonprofessional scientists. And to me, that's absurd."
That's why Pauly, together with Vendetti, and several Australian biologists are arguing that criteria must change to recognize citizen scientists as authors on scientific journal articles. They propose what they're calling "group co-authorship." They make the case in the journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution.
The author list on Vendetti's snail-and-slug paper includes the phrase "citizen science participants in SLIME." But the phrase is absent when you look up the paper on Google Scholar. The publication software simply isn't equipped to handle that kind of authorship, and so it erases the group's vital contribution.
In another case, several years ago in Australia, a team of researchers tried to condition native monitor lizards to avoid chowing down on the invasive—and poisonous—cane toads. And for the most part it worked.
"But the only reason it was successful was because they partnered with the traditional landowners in northwestern Australia, this group called the Balanggarra Rangers."

Several journals flat-out refused to allow for the inclusion of the Rangers as group co-authors. Eventually, the researchers did convince the editors of some journals to allow it, but the group's title was abbreviated, as if it was a first and last name, in online indexing software: "B. Rangers." The researchers argue that these errors and omissions don't only render the critical contributions of an indigenous community as invisible—they could also be perceived as discriminatory.
"If the person who had made that contribution was an undergraduate or a graduate student who was trying to pursue a career in the sciences, we would all say, 'Oh, of course that person should be a co-author' or 'that group of people should be a co-author.' But we don't necessarily extend that same line of reasoning to citizen scientists."
Allowing for group co-authorship is not a new idea. In 2004 the journal Nature published a paper titled "Initial Sequencing and Analysis of the Human Genome." It listed as the sole author the "International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium."
"So let's just co-opt this group-authorship model and turn it into group co-authorships. This really shouldn't be that hard."
Thanks for listening for Scientific American's 60-second Science. I'm Jason Goldman.

参考译文

这里是科学美国人——60秒科学pizty))(oJ5+udY)So0l。我是杰森·古德曼^FU)H3(Mf&]xl。
2018年，生物学家珍·文迪蒂发表了一篇论文，描述了在南加州发现的五种非本土蜗牛和鼻涕虫&baUzUZt5+8-。如果没有约1200名志愿者向iNaturalist应用程序的SLIME项目（生活在大都市的蜗牛和鼻涕虫）上传近1万张腹足类动物照片，这项研究就不可能进行w5*W)twZ[zOCOAu3。
“因此，整篇论文的存在都依赖于这些公民科学家P)&~JmApPFiXA%0ES。要如何记住这些人的功劳？”
洛杉矶自然历史博物馆的爬虫馆馆长格雷格·保利说到u2j0]TXuneYq)ufWaZ.。
“很多期刊和学校团体都提出了一些非常具体的要求5P7nsG8C2Zov~IES。而这些要求在很大程度上会将非职业科学家排除在外i3Ew!^mc1,mZ。对我来说，这太荒谬了(%M-9=BfxD=W(WktuBLx。”
因此，保利、文迪蒂以及澳大利亚几位生物学家认为必须改变现有标准，承认公民科学家是科学期刊文章的作者;f!jr@iNIgCt#xBY(Qcr。他们提出了他们称之为的“团体合著关系”的观点(go0JTLa8I9mqsN9。他们在《生态学与进化趋势》期刊上对此进行了说明hR!T1K7Bo=9BnVqD。
文迪蒂发表的有关蜗牛和鼻涕虫的论文中，作者名单包括了“SLIME”项目中的公民科学参与者z4T2d~Jm4)。但在谷歌学术上查阅这篇论文时，你却看不到这个短语Q,f(P|HQGO9^Jgm*。这个出版软件根本不具备处理这种作者身份的能力，因此它抹去了该群体的重要贡献Mq_3uL4HsN#wDy3BN]8。
在另一个案例中，几年前澳大利亚一个研究小组试图让本土巨蜥适应环境，以避免吞食入侵性和有毒的甘蔗蟾蜍yX74^]N3eA-!!&%b。大体上来说，这是成功的(T!BCd-]gwE8D5。
“但成功的唯一原因是，他们与澳大利亚西北部的传统土地所有者组织Balanggarra Rangers进行了合作hbJ34c6hN1.u&%F。”
多家刊物断然拒绝将Rangers纳入为团体合著者Se3aRg6IxB4E。最终，研究人员确实说服了几家期刊的编辑，但团体的头衔被简略得像一个姓氏和一个名字，在线上索引软件上显示为“B.Rangers”92djLgnYlErlEV9oht;w。研究人员认为，这些错误和遗漏不仅忽视了土著社区的关键贡献，还可能构成歧视84NcM1OQFKZHX.。
“如果做出贡献的人是努力在科学界追求事业的本科生或研究生，我们都会说，‘哦，这个人当然应该是合著者'或‘这群人应该是合著者'+m&f!eAl[JK。但对于公民科学家，我们不一定会延伸同样的推理路线+HEqPI+!a-w。”
团队合作关系并非新观点z|H|UG5N@]@J7j^|@w。2004年，《自然》期刊就发表了一篇题为“人类基因组的初步测序与分析”的论文V+J2I8=qi)。该文“国际人类基因组测序联盟”列为唯一作者1oTHlt4q;&h~wo.hl。
“因此，让我们借鉴这种团体作者关系模式，并将其转化为团体合著关系OqEH)G7|BxfqafP%W[。这真的不应该那么难~gbMy_,W]g;。”
谢谢大家收听科学美国人——60秒科学%nesdUzab&pC;E8!h。我是杰森·古德曼=;e8JM.Hp]YnLIL~[YAq。

译文为可可英语翻译，未经授权请勿转载！

重点讲解

重点讲解：
1. be dependent upon 取决（于…）的；有赖（于…）的；
The price is dependent upon how many extras you choose.
价格取决于你挑选额外收费项目的多少Mce60Sc])a&*o-w]+-h。
2. look up （在参考书、列表等中）查检（事实或信息）；
I looked your address up in the personnel file.
我在人事档案里找到了你的地址SEwh6c9%NyTgL*lUGy。
3. for the most part 绝大部分；多数；
Professors, for the most part, are firmly committed to teaching, not research.
大多数教授都投身于教学，而不是研究wIyj*tPZmK|8jBEA。
4. as if 好像；仿佛；
Anne shrugged, as if she didn't know.
安妮耸了耸肩，好像她并不知晓QIsk;2AI(Wjva^!。