Two scientists wrote a paper detailing their research and conclusions and submitted it to a scientific journal. several months later, they received the paper back from the publisher with many comments attached from several fellow scientists. what is most likely the next step taken by the authors of the paper? they will change their research to a different topic and start all over again. they will alter the data to match the results that their peers were expecting. they will incorporate the suggestions from their peers and resubmit the paper. they will sue the journal for not printing the paper and delaying their research.

The answer is option 3: They will incorporate the suggestions from their peers and resubmit the paper.

That is most likely the next step taken by the authors of the paper since the fact that they received the paper back with many comments does not mean that they have to give up with their research topic or alter the data. Actually, the comments from several fellow scientists that are attached to the paper are useful and should be considered as suggestions for improving the paper. Thus, the two scientists will incorporate the suggestions from their peers and resubmit the paper.

The correct answer is “They will incorporate the suggestions from their peers and resubmit the paper.”

Indeed, one of the main principles that ensure the validity and reliability of the scientific method and publications is the notion of peer-review. Your work as a scientist has to be verifiable and reproducible by other scientists in order to make sure that you are not using flawed methodology, or faking your results to match your claims. If their paper was returned it was probably due to imperfections in their methodology or to contradictory or impossible to reproduce results and ethical scientists would take the observations of their peers very seriously and use them to strengthen their own research and reveal their conclusions, wherever they lead them to.

anyone who was dealing with communism in soviet union in his time had an ideal picture of equality, freedom, the struggle of the working class for a better future, the success of the aristocracy's overthrow and the emancipation of subjugation.   however, anyone who would go to soviet union to see the functioning of the communist system, would be convinced that it was about sad people, about everyday bad life, about the brutal attitude of communist leaders, about ill obsession to completely exterminate every thought on aristocracy. thus, orwell wanted to show all the absurdity, the brutality of the system, the unbearable rule of suspicious morality, the ignorant people who try to play professionally.

the answers are: b. and e.