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
84
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
A、SecretaryofStateforHealth.B、Liverpool.C、PatrickTate.D、AcompanynamedCACI.D特定信息的找寻和判断。根据原文PatrickTate,principalres
A、Theshipwasluxuriouslydecorated.B、Theshipwascarryingseveralmilliondollars.C、Theshiphadsomeprecioussculptureso
StockMarketVocabularyandExpressionsdebtmarketliquidinvestmentup-and-comingcounterpartyliquidityim
StockMarketVocabularyandExpressionsdebtmarketliquidinvestmentup-and-comingcounterpartyliquidityim
ShouldUrbanGrowthbeRestricted?VocabularyandExpressionsrepercussionAbercrombiePlanoptimalaccommodateaut
ShouldUrbanGrowthbeRestricted?VocabularyandExpressionsrepercussionAbercrombiePlanoptimalaccommodateaut
GoldRushinCaliforniaVocabularyandExpressionsnuggetsawmillfinancierBenjaminBuckleywasnotoneoftheluckyb
ThebadeffectsoftrafficjamsincludethefollowingEXCEPT______.
Whyaretravelersexperiencingmorestressthaneverastheycheckinattheairport?
EveningTrainandtheWomanIamworriedaboutthewoman.Iamafraidshemighthurtherself,perhapshasalreadyhurthersel
随机试题
甲持有乙公司34%的股份,为第一大股东。2007年1月,乙公司召开股东大会讨论其为甲向银行借款提供担保事宜。出席本次大会的股东(包括甲)所持表决权占公司发行在外股份总数的49%,除一名持有公司股份总额1%的小股东反对外,其余股东都同意乙公司为甲向银行借款提
你是一家大型企业的投资部经理,在大中华区主持项目的可行性研究。北京爆发“非典”疾病之后,你在北京考察半月之后,将提交一份“非典”疾病对于投资计划影响的专题报告。一份报告的基本结构中,分为哪几个部分?包含哪几种要素?
实用新型是指对产品的形状、构造或者其结合所提出的适于实用的新的技术方案。()
某患者经医生诊治为精神分裂症,其临床症状不包括
体温每升高1℃,成人心率平均每分钟约增加()。
风险管理与控制的核心包括()。Ⅰ.风险限额的确定Ⅱ.风险限额的分配Ⅲ.风险监控Ⅳ.风险的消除
导游人员未经旅行社委派,私自承揽导游业务,进行导游活动的,扣()。
有效教学的实质和核心是()
设f(x)在[0,1]上二阶可导,且|f(x)|≤a,|f”(x)|≤b,其中a,b都是非负常数,C为(0,1)内任意一点.写出f(x)在x=c处带Lagrange型余项的一阶泰勒公式;
通常双绞线系统的测试指标中,(29)是由于集肤效应、绝缘损耗、阻抗不匹配、连接电阻等因素,造成信号沿链路传输的损失。
最新回复
(
0
)