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
62
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://www.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
Peoplehavespeculatedforcenturiesaboutafuturewithoutwork.Todayisnodifferent,withacademics,writers,andactivists
Peoplehavespeculatedforcenturiesaboutafuturewithoutwork.Todayisnodifferent,withacademics,writers,andactivists
Happypeopleworkdifferently.They’remoreproductive,morecreative,andwillingtotakegreaterrisks.Andnewresearchsugge
Happypeopleworkdifferently.They’remoreproductive,morecreative,andwillingtotakegreaterrisks.Andnewresearchsugge
Happypeopleworkdifferently.They’remoreproductive,morecreative,andwillingtotakegreaterrisks.Andnewresearchsugge
Amtrak—thelargestrailwaycompanyintheU.S.—wasexperiencingadeclininginridership.【C1】________majorconcernstoAmtraka
Rowethinksacivilizedlifeismadepossiblebypeopledoing________.
Rowethinksacivilizedlifeismadepossiblebypeopledoing________.
随机试题
Itishightimethatsuchapractice______anendto.
A.B级B.A级C.D级D.C1级E.C2级有全层的视网膜固定皱襞,且病变范围位于2个象限,属于国际视网膜学会(1983)PVR分级的
17岁女性。右侧下颌骨逐渐膨大8年。近来增大速度减慢。检查见下颌骨体部弥漫性膨大,但以颊侧更明显,质硬。X线片示右下颌骨体部呈磨砂玻璃样,与骨皮质相移行。术后标本病理检查发现纤维组织代替正常骨组织,其中有较多的纤细骨小梁。可能的诊断为
A、创伤性溃疡B、放射性损伤C、化学性灼伤D、热损伤E、疱疹性口炎长期刺激可发生癌变的是
发行申请文件一经申报后,未经中国证监会同意,不得随意增加、撤回或更改。()
民族区域自治制度与特别行政区制度的区别不包括()。
某高校对所有报名参加国庆60周年检阅方阵的学生进行了体检,没有发现心脏异常者。如果以上陈述为假,则以下哪项必真?I.虽然有的报名者没有体检,但是还是发现了心脏异常者Ⅱ.或者有的报名者没有体检,或者在报名者中发现了心脏异常者
Marshasbeenmuchpossessedbydeath.Inthelate19thcenturyPercivalLowell,anAmericanastronomer,persuadedmuchofthep
在某个事件过程中定义的变量是
Theageatwhichkidsfirstfallvictimtobullying(欺侮)couldinfluencehowstronglytheyareaffected,suggestsanewstudy.And
最新回复
(
0
)