Adopted across multiple academic institutions, the Academic Integrity Framework represents a research policy that guarantees institutional backing for...
GMAT Information and Ideas : (Ideas) Questions
Adopted across multiple academic institutions, the Academic Integrity Framework represents a research policy that guarantees institutional backing for scholars who expose wrongdoing in peer review systems. Nevertheless, this framework includes troubling stipulations. For instance, it permits institutions to designate their internal inquiries and corrective measures concerning reviewer bias as private staffing issues. Consequently, certain academic transparency proponents voice apprehension that this framework might produce the unforeseen result of ______
Which choice most logically completes the text?
prohibiting external monitors from confirming whether institutions properly handle reported reviewer wrongdoing.
reducing the institutional backing that scholars may obtain when exposing peer review wrongdoing.
restricting the prejudice education that institutions offer to reviewers who have faced misconduct allegations.
deterring scholars from acquiring novel techniques for detecting reviewer bias via institutional collaborations.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| 'Adopted across multiple academic institutions, the Academic Integrity Framework represents a research policy that guarantees institutional backing for scholars who expose wrongdoing in peer review systems.' |
|
| 'Nevertheless, this framework includes troubling stipulations.' |
|
| 'For instance, it permits institutions to designate their internal inquiries and corrective measures concerning reviewer bias as private staffing issues.' |
|
| 'Consequently, certain academic transparency proponents voice apprehension that this framework might produce the unforeseen result of ______' |
|
Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Visual Structure Map: FRAMEWORK INTRODUCTION - Policy guarantees backing for scholars, then CONTRAST - PROBLEMS - Nevertheless troubling stipulations, then SPECIFIC EXAMPLE - Can classify as private staffing issues, then CONSEQUENCE/CONCERN - Transparency advocates worry
Main Point: The Academic Integrity Framework, while designed to support scholars exposing wrongdoing, contains provisions that might actually undermine transparency.
Argument Flow: The passage introduces a seemingly positive policy, then reveals problematic aspects using nevertheless, provides a specific troubling example, and concludes with concerns about negative consequences that need to be completed.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
This is a fill-in-the-blank question asking us to choose the best logical connector. The answer must create the right relationship between what comes before and after the blank.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- If institutions can designate their internal inquiries about reviewer bias as private staffing issues, this creates a transparency problem
- The key elements the correct answer must have: Should connect logically to the private staffing issues designation, Should reflect the transparency advocates concerns, Should show how this policy could backfire against its stated transparency goals
- The logic is: if investigations are private, then external people cannot see them or verify what is happening
- So the right answer should explain how this privacy designation prevents outside oversight or verification of institutional actions
prohibiting external monitors from confirming whether institutions properly handle reported reviewer wrongdoing.
- This directly follows from making investigations private staffing issues - if they are private, external monitors cannot access them
- Matches our prethinking about transparency problems and outside oversight
- Shows the unforeseen result: a policy meant to support transparency actually blocks it
reducing the institutional backing that scholars may obtain when exposing peer review wrongdoing.
- The framework explicitly guarantees institutional backing - this contradicts the passage
- The problem is not reduced backing, it is reduced transparency of how that backing works
- Trap: Students might think any negative result fits, but this contradicts explicit passage information
restricting the prejudice education that institutions offer to reviewers who have faced misconduct allegations.
- Prejudice education is never mentioned in the passage
- The passage focuses on investigation transparency, not education programs
- This introduces concepts not supported by the text
deterring scholars from acquiring novel techniques for detecting reviewer bias via institutional collaborations.
- Novel techniques and institutional collaborations are not discussed in the passage
- The passage is about transparency of existing processes, not acquiring new methods
- This goes beyond the scope of the transparency concerns described