2. 外语
  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

admin2013-01-12  108
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 author’s 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 Cooperation 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 institutional subscribers pay for access to a collection of online journal rifles 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 OECD的报告在第二段中提到，由于网络的介入，出版社以前“so far，made handsome profits．”的情况发生了改变(文中change一词)，说明现在的情形对出版社来说变坏了。C选项中“upset”意为“打乱、颠覆”，与报告内容相符。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/tf9O777K
0

考博英语

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)