More and more academic institutions are using citation analysis as the

Question

More and more academic institutions are using citation analysis as the main technique for measuring the quality of scientific research. This technique involves a yearly scanning of scientific journals to count the number of references to a researcher’s work. Although academic institutions want to encourage good research, use of citation analysis actually works against this goal since scientists seeking to maximize citation counts will avoid multiyear projects in favor of short-term projects in faddish areas.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest support for the argument?

(A) In general scientific research is not referred to in journals until the research is completed.
(B) Areas of science that are faddish at some point are not necessarily lacking in significance.
(C) Research that is initially criticized in scientific journals sometimes turns out to be groundbreaking work.
(D) Scientists are sometimes hostile to interim assessments of ongoing research since such assessments might threaten the continuity of funding.
(E) Scientists often cite their colleagues’ work when they think it is unfairly neglected by the scientific establishment.

LordStark · Answer

ANSWER A. Provides a reason for the scientists to focus on short term projects.

ShankSouljaBoi · Answer

Conc: Citing analysis is bad for quality of research because researchers look for shorter span projects.
Prethinking: shorter ones are not quality work.
Strengthener: something that links short span to bad quality.

(A) In general scientific research is not referred to in journals until the research is completed.
(B) Areas of science that are faddish at some point are not necessarily lacking in significance. ---> Some sciences like theology astronomy whatever whatever, tend to become significant later on in future. Irrelevant to our conclusion. This has got nothing to do about short span reasearches and their poor quality.
(C) Research that is initially criticized in scientific journals sometimes turns out to be groundbreaking work. Similar to B OUT
(D) Scientists are sometimes hostile to interim assessments of ongoing research since such assessments might threaten the continuity of funding. Who cares what researchers think of interruption in their work. OUT
(E) Scientists often cite their colleagues’ work when they think it is unfairly neglected by the scientific establishment. Colleague's work is irrlevant to conc.

Takeaway: Keep conclusion in mind. Spent around a minute to grasp the passage itself. Doe not really hirt to spend time with the passage, I feel.

souvikgmat1990 · Answer

Can anyone help with this? I can understand why option B, C, D and E is wrong. But I am not sure what makes A correct.

Diwakar003 · Answer

Hey  souvikgmat1990

Argument states that 
- Citation analysis is a method involving counting the no.of citations/references to an author's work in journals.
- The above method is used by institutions to measure the quality of research papers.
- However, quantity does not equal to quality as scientists will  concentrate on short term research over long term ones  to increase the citations of their works.

A - In general scientific research is not referred to in journals until the research is completed.

Only when a research is completed, it is referred in journals. So to increase the research/no.of citations in journals, there's a chance that scientists will choose to complete multiple short term projects over long term ones. So this argument strengthens author's claim. Hope the post helps.

Cheers!

Skywalker18 · Answer

More and more academic institutions are using citation analysis as the main technique for measuring the quality of scientific research. This technique involves a yearly scanning of scientific journals to count the number of references to a researcher’s work. Although academic institutions want to encourage good research, use of citation analysis actually works against this goal since scientists seeking to maximize citation counts will avoid multiyear projects in favor of short-term projects in faddish areas.

Type- strengthen
Boil it down- citation analysis leads to bad research
Premise- Increase in usage of citation analysis to measure the quality of research

(A) In general scientific research is not referred to in journals until the research is completed. - Correct - If there's no way to get cited until you finish your research, then you definitely can't get a high CA by engaging in really long-term projects.
(B) Areas of science that are faddish at some point are not necessarily lacking in significance. - Incorrect - This relates to the idea that the faddish work can be significant. But we would already have assumed that to be true. The bigger issue is that we're incentivizing short-term work.
(C) Research that is initially criticized in scientific journals sometimes turns out to be groundbreaking work. - Irrelevant 
(D) Scientists are sometimes hostile to interim assessments of ongoing research since such assessments might threaten the continuity of funding. - we don't actually know yet if the "interim assessments" in question would allow a piece of research to be cited. Compare to answer choice (A), where it directly says "referred to in journals." These interim assessments might not have anything to do with journals, in which case this answer would be completely irrelevant.
(E) Scientists often cite their colleagues’ work when they think it is unfairly neglected by the scientific establishment. - Incorrect - another reason why the use of citation analysis might be bad

Answer A

navderm · Answer

in D, of course researchers will choose shorter work if they think the longer work will cause interruption. What do you mean by 'who cares'? It actually does strengthen, albeit incorrectly because the 'assessment' is different from 'publication'. If publication led to assessment, this would definitely be a correct answer, however, we don't know if it does.

rvgmat12 · Answer

From Powerscore:

The author claims this is true because scientists seeking to maximize citation counts will avoid multiyear projects, seeking instead short-term projects. Why is that? One idea, and I think this is THE idea behind the author's argument, is that scientists will not engage in multiyear projects because, while they're completing those projects, there's nothing to cite - the research can only be cited when the project is finished. Thus, for years, scientists will be working on something that cannot help pad their citation numbers, and thus citation analysis will undervalue the contributions of those scientists. That argument seems to rely on what I said earlier - there's nothing to cite until the project is finished. If the project's partial results could be cited earlier, then there's much less reasons for scientists to avoid such projects, as those projects would then also offer an opportunity for padding citation numbers. This is why answer choice (A) is good for the argument - research can't get cited until it's completed.

PSKhore · Answer

(A) In general scientific research is not referred to in journals until the research is completed.  
This statement directly links the timeline of research (multiyear vs. short-term) to the mechanism of citation analysis. If research is not cited until it is completed, a multiyear project will not generate any citations for several years, putting the researcher at a disadvantage in a system that performs a  "yearly scanning"  to count references. In contrast, a short-term project can be completed quickly and start generating citations, thus maximizing a researcher's count. This provides a strong incentive for scientists to choose short-term projects, directly supporting the argument's central claim.

Tejasethb · Answer

Why A correct-

Conclusion - CA is bad- Reason- Short term preferred- Author assuming that there is some issue with taking up of short term projects.

More and more academic institutions are using citation analysis as the

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

More and more academic institutions are using citation analysis as the

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards