首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
If there is any endeavor whose fruits should be freely available, that endeavor is surely publicly financed science. Morally, ta
If there is any endeavor whose fruits should be freely available, that endeavor is surely publicly financed science. Morally, ta
admin
2019-09-23
53
问题
If there is any endeavor whose fruits should be freely available, that endeavor is surely publicly financed science. Morally, taxpayers who wish to should be able to read about it without further expense. And science advances through cross-fertilization between projects. Barriers to that exchange slow it down.
There is a widespread feeling that the journal publishers who have mediated this exchange for the past century or more are becoming an impediment to it. One of the latest converts is the British government. Recently it announced that, the results of taxpayer-financed research would be available, free and online, for anyone to read and redistribute.
Britain’s government is not alone. Soon the European Union followed suit. In the U.S., the National Institutes of Health (NIH, the single biggest source of civilian research funds in the world) has required open-access publishing since 2008. And the Wellcome Trust, a British foundation that is the world’s second-biggest charitable source of scientific money, after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, also insists that those who receive its support should make their work available free.
Criticism of journal publishers usually boils down to two things. One is that their processes take months, when the Internet could enable them to take days. The other is that because each paper is like a mini-monopoly, which workers in the field have to read if they are to advance their own research, there is no incentive to keep the price down. The publishers thus have scientists — or, more accurately, their universities, which pay the subscriptions — in an armlock. That, combined with the fact that the raw material (manuscripts of papers) is free, leads to generous returns. In 2011, Elsevier, a large Dutch publisher, made a profit of £768 million on revenues of £2.06 billion — a margin of 37 percent. Indeed, Elsevier’s profits are thought so
egregious
by many people that 12,000 researchers have signed up to boycott the company’s journals.
Publishers do provide a service. They organize peer reviews, in which papers are criticized anonymously by experts (though those experts, like the authors of papers, are seldom paid for what they do). They also sort the scientific sheep from the goats, by deciding what gets published, and where. That gives the publishers huge power. Since researchers, administrators and grant-awarding bodies all take note of which work has got through this filtering mechanism, the competition to publish in the best journals is intense, and the system becomes self-reinforcing, increasing the value of those journals still further.
But not, perhaps, for much longer. Support has been swelling for open-access scientific publishing: doing it online, in a way that allows anyone to read papers free of charge. The movement started among scientists themselves, but governments are paying attention and asking whether they might also benefit from the change.
Much remains to be worked out. Some fear the loss of the traditional journals’ curation and verification of research. Even Sir Mark Walport, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a fierce advocate of open-access publication, worries that the newly liberated papers have ended up in different places rather than being consolidated in the way they want.
A revolution, then, has begun. Technology permits it; researchers and politicians want it. If scientific publishers are not trembling in their boots, they should be.
According to Paragraph 3, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation______.
选项
A、is a very important provider of research funding
B、argues that researchers make their findings public freely
C、has a monopoly on any research results with its financial support
D、follows the example set by the U.S. NIH
答案
A
解析
细节题。根据题干关键词定位第3段第4句,分析句子结构可知,the Wellcome Trust排在the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation之后,是世界第二大为科学研究提供资金的慈善机构,由此推断the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation也为科学研究提供资助,故选A。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/SAMO777K
本试题收录于:
CATTI二级笔译综合能力题库翻译专业资格(CATTI)分类
0
CATTI二级笔译综合能力
翻译专业资格(CATTI)
相关试题推荐
Whichofthefollowingstatementsistrueaccordingtowhatyouhaveheard?
Whichofthefollowingcanbestdescribehissituation?
A、Theshipwasluxuriouslydecorated.B、Theshipwascarryingseveralmilliondollars.C、Theshiphadsomeprecioussculptureso
TheCommissionisexpectedtoproposeallowingpeopletochoosewhichlegaljurisdictiontheywouldcomeunder,basedontheir【L
Whichofthefollowingcanbestdescribeherpersonality?
A、Theshipwasluxuriouslydecorated.B、Theshipwascarryingseveralmilliondollars.C、Theshiphadsomeprecioussculptureso
LifeLessonsTravelHasTaughtMeVocabularyandExpressionshustleandbustlecatalystDepravedphilosophize
GoldRushinCaliforniaVocabularyandExpressionsnuggetsawmillfinancierBenjaminBuckleywasnotoneoftheluckyb
DoLanguagesShapetheWayWeThink?VocabularyandExpressionsperceivedifferentiatefacilitateADanipersoncannot
Howmanymemoryhacksarementionedinthearticle?
随机试题
根据计算机的用途不同,可以将计算机分为____________。
个别牙或数个牙出现宽而浅的骨上袋,袋内牙石较多,应考虑个别牙出现窄而深的骨下袋并常伴牙周脓肿形成,应考虑
目前我国预防碘缺乏病的最主要措施是
下列监管措施中,不属于银行业现场检查的是()。
甲股份有限公司(本题下称“甲公司”)为上市公司,2009年至2010年企业合并、长期股权投资有关资料如下:(1)2009年1月1日,甲公司通过定向增发2000万股普通股(每股面值1元,市价5元),取得了A公司持有的乙公司(非上市公司)80%的股份,
ABC公司研制成功一台新产品,现在需要决定是否大规模投产,在不考虑通货膨胀的情况下,有关资料如下:(1)公司的销售部门预计,如果每台定价3万元,销售量每年可以达到10000台;销售量不会逐年上升,但价格可以每年提高2%。生产部门预计,变动制造成本
James’SNewBicycleJamesshookhismoneyboxagain.Nothing!Hecarefully【B1】__________thecoinsthatlayonthebed,$24.52was
企业原来的资金结构及资金成本如下:普通股总额为2000万元,资金成本15%;长期债券3000万元,资金成本为8%。该公司准备向银行借款1000万元购买一项固定资产,已知借款利率为5%,每年复利一次。不考虑银行借款的筹资费用。预计该资产投产后每年可为企
CPA
"Blink"TechnologyA)Tiredofallthattime-consumingswiping?Creditcardsusing"contactless"technologyallowuserstopayfo
最新回复
(
0
)