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
2023-01-17
58
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 (NM, 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.Arevolution, 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
根据第3段最后一句可知,盖茨基金会是世界上第一大科研经费慈善资助来源,因此A项“是科学研究基金的重要的来源”正确。B项“认为研究人员应该将其资助的项目成果免费公开”,这是维尔康信托基金的观点,而非盖茨基金会。C项“对所有获得其财政资助的研究成果进行垄断”,不符合文意,排除。D项“跟随美国NIH做出的示范”,文中并无提及,排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/aCcD777K
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
"Juststicktoscience."ThisisacommonadmonitionthatSciencereceiveswhenwepublishcommentariesandnewsstoriesonpoli
Howseriouslyshouldparentstakekids’opinionswhensearchingforahome?Inchoosinganewhome,CamilleMcClain’skidsh
ThedeclineinAmericanmanufacturingisacommonrefrain,particularlyfromDonaldTrump."Wedon’tmakeanythinganymore,"he
Peoplehavespeculatedforcenturiesaboutafuturewithoutwork.Todayisnodifferent,withacademics,writers,andactivists
Peoplehavespeculatedforcenturiesaboutafuturewithoutwork.Todayisnodifferent,withacademics,writers,andactivists
Happypeopleworkdifferently.They’remoreproductive,morecreative,andwillingtotakegreaterrisks.Andnewresearchsugge
Happypeopleworkdifferently.They’remoreproductive,morecreative,andwillingtotakegreaterrisks.Andnewresearchsugge
Amtrak—thelargestrailwaycompanyintheU.S.—wasexperiencingadeclininginridership.【C1】________majorconcernstoAmtraka
Amtrak—thelargestrailwaycompanyintheU.S.—wasexperiencingadeclininginridership.【C1】________majorconcernstoAmtraka
"Beforetheoperation,IwouldlookatsomeoneandallIcouldseefortheirfacewasjelly,"saysJonathanWyatt."Now,Ican
随机试题
预防手术后尿潴留,下列错误的是【】
A.长期低热、盗汗、咳嗽,近日出现寒战、高热,咯脓痰B.急性寒战、咳嗽、咯痰、痰量逐渐增多,有臭味C.反复发热、咯血,并有大量脓痰D.急性寒战、高热、胸痛、咳嗽,咯铁锈色痰E.咽部发痒、干咳、无痰支气管扩张合并感染可见
背景某施工总承包企业承担北京某综合楼工程。建筑面积43457m2,筏板基础,框架剪力墙结构。地下二层,地上十层。2015年10月1日开工,2017年6月1日竣工。北京地区2015年、2016年冬期施工期限是11月15日至3月15日。2016年6月15日至
Excel中,函数RIGHT的必选参数有()。
转换平价的计算公式是()。
依《反垄断法》规定,负责组织、协调、指导反垄断工作的机构是()。
奥尔波特公式《电子科技大学2011研)
按照法律的创制主体和适用主体的不同,法律可以分为()
为用ARM芯片的一根GPIO引脚驱动一个LED(发光二极管),设计了如下图(a)~(d)共4个具体的电路。图中,设计得最合理的电路是()。
HowmanypeoplegatheredinChicagodemandingrightsforillegalimmigrants?
最新回复
(
0
)