2. 考研
  3. It used to be so straightforward. A team of researchers working together in the laboratory would submit the results of their res

It used to be so straightforward. A team of researchers working together in the laboratory would submit the results of their res

admin2017-12-11  57
问题    It used to be so straightforward. A team of researchers working together in the laboratory would submit the results of their research to a journal. A journal editor would then remove the authors’ names and affiliations from the paper and send it to their peers for review. Depending on the comments received, the editor would accept the paper for publication or decline it. Copyright rested with the journal publisher, and researchers seeking knowledge of the results would have to subscribe to the journal.
   No longer. The Internet—and pressure from funding agencies, who are questioning why commercial publishers are making money from government-funded research by restricting access to it—is making access to scientific results a reality. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD)has just issued a report describing the far-reaching consequences of this. The report, by John Houghton of Victoria University in Australia and Graham Vickery of the OECD, makes heavy reading for publishers who have, so far, made handsome profits. But it goes further than that. It signals a change in what has, until now, been a key element of scientific endeavor.
   The value of knowledge and the return on the public investment in research depends, in part, upon wide distribution and ready access. It is big business. In America, the core scientific publishing market is estimated at between $7 billion and $11 billion. The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers says that there are more than 2, 000 publishers worldwide specializing in these subjects. They publish more than 1.2 million articles each year in some 16, 000 journals.
   This is now changing. According to the OECD report, some 75% of scholarly journals are now online. Entirely new business models are emerging; three main ones were identified by the report’ s authors. There is the so-called big deal, where institutional subscribers pay for access to a collection of online journal titles through site-licensing agreements. There is open-access publishing, typically supported by asking the author(or his employer)to pay for the paper to be published. Finally, there are open-access archives, where organizations such as universities or international laboratories support institutional repositories. Other models exist that are hybrids of these three, such as delayed open-access, where journals allow only subscribers to read a paper for the first six months, before making it freely available to everyone who wishes to see it. All this could change the traditional form of the peer-review process, at least for the publication of papers.
In the first paragraph, the author discusses
选项 A、the background information of journal editing.
B、the publication routine of laboratory reports.
C、the relations of authors with journal publishers.
D、the traditional process of journal publication.
答案D
解析 细节题。本题考查的是考生对第一段的理解。根据文章，第一段中，作者写道，实验室先把 结果交给刊物，在编辑删除论文中作者和相关信息后，论文将交给专家来评审，以决定论文是否 能发表。版权由杂志社保留。研究者必须订阅杂志才能查找此研究结果的相关文章。由此可以 看出，这段话主要讲的是学术期刊的出版(科研成果的发表)过程及特点。因此D项“刊物出版的 传统流程”正确。A项“刊物编辑的背景信息和选项”，B项“实验报告的出版流程”，C项“作者与 出版商的关系”，都未能准确概括本段的含义。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/AsBZ777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)