2. 医学
  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

admin2013-12-14  47
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.
    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 say 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.
Which of the following is true of the OECD report?
选项 A、It criticizes government-funded research.
B、It introduces an effective means of publication.
C、It upsets profit-making journal publishers.
D、It benefits scientific research considerably.
答案C
解析 问：哪个是关于OECD报告的正确说法?这个题可以用排除法去分析。选项A的意思是：OECD的报告批评政府出资的科研项目。这不正确。原文没有提到这个意思。故选项A不正确。选项B的意思是：引进介绍一种有效的出版方法，这不正确。OECD的报告说明了新的互联网为媒介的阅读和出版的新模式。而不是引进介绍一种新的方法。选项D也不正确。文中没有说明报告本身对科学研究会产生什么样的影响。故答案：为C。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/GqU3777K
本试题收录于： 医学博士外语题库考研分类
0

医学博士外语

考研

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)