📘 What’s Inside This CAT RC Practice Post?
📝 Authentic CAT Reading Comprehension Passage: Practice with a real RC passage from a previous CAT exam.
✅ Detailed Questions with Step-by-Step Solutions: Each question is explained thoroughly for better understanding.
🔍 In-Depth Passage Analysis: Gain insights through line-by-line and paragraph-wise analysis, supplemented with a quick summary table for efficient revision.
📚 Vocabulary Enhancement: Get a separate post explaining all tough words from the passage.
RC Passage
Direction for the questions 5 to 8: The passage below is accompanied by a set of four questions. Choose the best answer to each question.
The job of a peer reviewer is thankless. Collectively, academics spend around 70 million hours every year evaluating each other's manuscripts on the behalf of scholarly journals - and they usually receive no monetary compensation and little if any recognition for their effort. Some do it as a way to keep abreast with developments in their field; some simply see it as a duty to the discipline. Either way, academic publishing would likely crumble without them.
In recent years, some scientists have begun posting their reviews online, mainly to claim credit for their work. Sites like Publons allow researchers to either share entire referee reports or simply list the journals for whom they've carried out a review.... The rise of Publons suggests that academics are increasingly placing value on the work of peer review and asking others, such as grant funders, to do the same. While that's vital in the publish-or-perish culture of academia, there's also immense value in the data underlying peer review. Sharing peer review data could help journals stamp out fraud, inefficiency, and systemic bias in academic publishing
Peer review data could also help root out bias. Last year, a study based on peer review data for nearly 24,000 submissions to the biomedical journal eLife found that women and non- Westerners were vastly underrepresented among peer reviewers. Only around one in every five reviewers was female, and less than two percent of reviewers were based in developing countries.... Openly publishing peer review data could perhaps also help journals address another problem in academic publishing: fraudulent peer reviews. For instance, a minority of authors have been known to use phony email addresses to pose as an outside expert and review their own manuscripts....
Opponents of open peer review commonly argue that confidentiality is vital to the integrity of the review process; referees may be less critical of manuscripts if their reports are published, especially if they are revealing their identities by signing them. Some also hold concerns that open reviewing may deter referees from agreeing to judge manuscripts in the first place, or that they'll take longer to do so out of fear of scrutiny....
Even when the content of reviews and the identity of reviewers can't be shared publicly, perhaps journals could share the data with outside researchers for study. Or they could release other figures that wouldn't compromise the anonymity of reviews but that might answer important questions about how long the reviewing process takes, how many researchers editors have to reach out to on average to find one who will carry out the work, and the geographic distribution of peer reviewers.
Of course, opening up data underlying the reviewing process will not fix peer review entirely, and there may be instances in which there are valid reasons to keep the content of peer reviews hidden and the identity of the referees confidential. But the norm should shift from opacity in all cases to opacity only when necessary.
RC Line-wise Explanation
🧩 Line-by-Line Explanation: The Role and Reform of Peer Review
Paragraph 1
Line 1: “The job of a peer reviewer is thankless.”
Explanation: Peer reviewers often receive little recognition or reward for their essential contributions.
Line 2: “Collectively, academics spend around 70 million hours every year evaluating each other's manuscripts…”
Explanation: Academics invest a huge amount of time in peer review work annually, but they are not paid or publicly acknowledged for it.
Line 3: “Some do it as a way to keep abreast with developments…”
Explanation: People review papers either to stay informed or because they feel a sense of professional responsibility.
Line 4: “Either way, academic publishing would likely crumble without them.”
Explanation: Regardless of motivation, the peer review system is critical to the survival of academic publishing.
Paragraph 2
Line 1: “In recent years, some scientists have begun posting their reviews online…”
Explanation: Researchers have started sharing their reviews publicly so they can get recognition for their efforts.
Line 2: “Sites like Publons allow researchers to either share…”
Explanation: Platforms such as Publons let reviewers either publish full reports or just record their reviewing history.
Line 3: “The rise of Publons suggests that academics are increasingly placing value…”
Explanation: The popularity of these platforms shows a trend toward valuing peer review as a legitimate scholarly activity.
Line 4: “While that's vital in the publish-or-perish culture of academia…”
Explanation: Recognizing peer review is crucial in academic culture, but the data behind the process also has great potential.
Line 5: “Sharing peer review data could help journals stamp out fraud…”
Explanation: If peer review data were made public, it could help improve the system by reducing misconduct and biases.
Paragraph 3
Line 1: “Peer review data could also help root out bias.”
Explanation: Peer review information can reveal instances of unfair treatment or imbalance.
Line 2: “Last year, a study based on peer review data…”
Explanation: A large study showed that peer reviewing roles were disproportionately filled by men and people from Western countries.
Line 3: “Only around one in every five reviewers was female…”
Explanation: Specifically, only 20% of reviewers were women, and a tiny fraction came from developing regions.
Line 4: “Openly publishing peer review data could perhaps also help journals address…”
Explanation: Making data public could also tackle the issue of fake or dishonest reviewing.
Line 5: “For instance, a minority of authors have been known to use phony email addresses…”
Explanation: Some unethical authors have faked reviewer identities to approve their own work.
Paragraph 4
Line 1: “Opponents of open peer review commonly argue…”
Explanation: Critics say keeping reviews confidential is necessary to maintain honest and fair evaluations.
Line 2: “Referees may be less critical of manuscripts…”
Explanation: Reviewers might soften their critiques if they know their names and comments will be public.
Line 3: “Some also hold concerns that open reviewing may deter referees…”
Explanation: There’s a fear that making reviews public might discourage people from volunteering as reviewers.
Line 4: “...or that they'll take longer to do so…”
Explanation: Public reviews might make reviewers nervous, causing delays as they carefully craft responses.
Paragraph 5
Line 1: “Even when the content of reviews and the identity of reviewers can't be shared publicly…”
Explanation: Even if reviews can’t be made public, journals might still share review data with scholars to study patterns.
Line 2: “Or they could release other figures that wouldn't compromise…”
Explanation: Journals could publish general statistics that protect reviewer identities.
Line 3: “...but that might answer important questions about how long…”
Explanation: These statistics could reveal insights into delays, reviewer recruitment challenges, and diversity of reviewers.
Paragraph 6
Line 1: “Of course, opening up data underlying the reviewing process will not fix peer review entirely…”
Explanation: Transparency alone won’t solve every problem with peer review.
Line 2: “...and there may be instances in which there are valid reasons…”
Explanation: In some cases, keeping reviews and reviewer identities secret is justified.
Line 3: “But the norm should shift from opacity in all cases to opacity only when necessary.”
Explanation: The default should be transparency unless there’s a strong reason for secrecy.
RC Paragraph Explanation
Paragraph 1 Summary
Peer reviewers play a crucial yet unrecognized role in academic publishing, often working for free with little acknowledgment. Despite this, their contributions are foundational to the system.
Paragraph 2 Summary
In response to lack of credit, some researchers have started publicly listing or sharing their reviews. Platforms like Publons promote this recognition and highlight the importance of peer review data in fighting issues like bias and inefficiency.
Paragraph 3 Summary
Peer review data reveals systemic underrepresentation of women and researchers from developing countries. Publicly available data could also help uncover and prevent fraudulent practices, such as fake reviews by authors.
Paragraph 4 Summary
Critics of open peer review argue that transparency may hinder honest feedback, reduce participation, or delay the process due to fear of exposure or criticism.
Paragraph 5 Summary
Even without revealing individual identities or full reviews, journals can share anonymized data or statistics that inform researchers about trends in the peer review process, such as timelines and geographic diversity.
Paragraph 6 Summary
While transparency isn't a cure-all, the default approach should favor openness in peer review, only using confidentiality when it is truly necessary.
RC Quick Table Summary
| Paragraph Number | Main Idea |
|---|---|
| Paragraph 1 | Peer reviewers are essential but often go unrecognized and unpaid. |
| Paragraph 2 | Researchers now seek credit for peer review and highlight the value of its data. |
| Paragraph 3 | Public peer review data could help expose bias and fraud. |
| Paragraph 4 | Confidentiality is argued to protect reviewer honesty and participation. |
| Paragraph 5 | Journals could share anonymized data to help understand and improve the process. |
| Paragraph 6 | Peer review should be transparent by default, with secrecy only when justified. |
RC Questions
Ques 5. According to the passage, which of the following is the only reason NOT given in favour of making peer review data public?
Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: The passage outlines several compelling reasons for making peer review data public, focusing on issues such as fraud detection, inefficiency reduction, and exposing systemic biases within the academic publishing process. However, it does not claim that publicizing such data would help in identifying or selecting more qualified reviewers. That is the key distinction which makes Option D the only choice not supported by the passage.
Option-wise Analysis
Option A: Supported. The passage explicitly mentions that some authors have committed fraud by reviewing their own work using fake email identities. Open peer review data could expose and help prevent such misconduct. Option B: Supported. The passage refers to a study revealing significant underrepresentation of women and researchers from developing countries in the peer review process. Making data public could help bring attention to and potentially correct such demographic imbalances. Option C: Supported. The author argues that access to peer review data could help combat inefficiency and systemic issues in academic publishing, indicating this is a key benefit of greater transparency. Option D: Not supported. Nowhere in the passage does the author claim that making peer review data public would improve the process of selecting better-qualified reviewers. The focus is on transparency, fraud prevention, and bias reduction—not on reviewer qualifications.
Ques 6. All of the following are listed as reasons why academics choose to review other scholars' work EXCEPT:
Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: The passage outlines several motivations for why academics take on the role of peer reviewers, despite the lack of monetary compensation or formal recognition. These include staying informed about developments in their field, viewing it as a service to the academic community, and increasingly, using platforms like Publons to gain visibility or credit for their reviewing efforts. However, the idea that academics see peer reviewing as a means to expand their influence in the community is not mentioned anywhere in the text. That makes Option D the only incorrect reason in the context of the passage.
Option-wise Analysis
Option A: Supported. The passage clearly states that some academics review to “keep abreast with developments in their field,” which directly aligns with staying current in their discipline. Option B: Supported. The passage mentions that some scientists are posting reviews online through platforms like Publons “mainly to claim credit” for their work—clearly showing they use the opportunity to publicize their reviewing efforts. Option C: Supported. The text notes that some scholars see peer reviewing as a “duty to the discipline,” highlighting the idea of contributing as a form of academic service. Option D: Not supported. There is no mention of reviewers using peer review as a means to expand their personal influence or authority in the academic community. This interpretation goes beyond what the passage provides.
Ques 7. Based on the passage we can infer that the author would most probably support
Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: The author argues strongly in favor of increasing transparency in the peer review process. While recognizing that some confidentiality may still be necessary, the passage clearly advocates a shift away from default secrecy. The author supports publishing peer review data (not necessarily the full reviews or reviewer identities) to address serious issues such as fraud, inefficiency, and systemic bias. The final line of the passage — "the norm should shift from opacity in all cases to opacity only when necessary" — makes this position explicit.
Option-wise Analysis
Option A: This is not supported by the passage. Although the author discusses demographic imbalances among reviewers, there is no mention of enforcing stricter content-related screening or matching reviewers based on familiarity with the subject matter. Option B: The author presents arguments from critics who support anonymity, but does not personally endorse this view. The author instead suggests that in some cases, anonymity may be necessary—but it shouldn’t be the standard approach. Option C: Only partially true. While the passage discusses the use of platforms like Publons, the focus is on data (e.g., review timelines, geographic diversity) rather than full public sharing of reports or identities. This option doesn’t capture the author’s broader emphasis on system-level transparency. Option D: Correct. This fully captures the author’s stance. The passage consistently supports greater openness in how peer review works and how its data is used, while allowing for occasional confidentiality when justified.
Ques 8. According to the passage, some are opposed to making peer reviews public for all the following reasons EXCEPT that it
Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: The passage outlines several reasons why opponents of open peer review are hesitant to make the review process public. These include the possibility that referees might become less critical, might refuse to review altogether, or take more time out of fear that their comments will be scrutinized. However, it does not mention the idea that reviewers fear unjust or unwarranted criticism from others as a reason for resisting open peer review. Instead, the concern is more about self-censorship and delays stemming from exposure, not protection from unfair criticism.
Option-wise Analysis
Option A: Supported. The passage clearly states that some believe reviewers may be less critical if their identities or reviews are made public. Option B: Not supported. Nowhere does the passage suggest that the intent behind confidentiality is to shield reviewers from unfair or unjustified public criticism. The focus is on their own hesitancy and potential behavioral change, not fear of being wrongly attacked. Option C: Supported. The text notes that public exposure could make reviewers less willing to provide honest, critical feedback, which could weaken the quality of peer review. Option D: Supported. The author refers to concerns that reviewers may take longer to complete their reviews if they fear being scrutinized.
