2022年考博英语-中国地质大学考前模拟强化练习题（附答案详解）1. 单选题9. If there is any endeavour whose fruits should be freely available, that endeavour 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.10. 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. On July 16 it announced that, from 2013, the results of taxpayer-financed research would be available, free and online, for anyone to read and redistribute.11. Britains government is not alone. On July 17 the European Union followed suit. It proposes making research paid for by its next scientific-spending round - which runs from 2014 to 2020, and will hand out about 80 billion, or $100 billion, in grants - similarly easy to get hold of. In America, 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 worlds second-biggest charitable source of scientific money, after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, also insists that those who receive its support make their work available free.12. Criticism of journal publishers usually boils down to two things, One is that their processes take months, when the internet could allow 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 768m on revenues of 2.06 billion - a margin of 37%. Indeed, Elseviers profits are thought so egregious by many people that 12,000 researchers have signed up to boycott the companys journals.13. Publishers do provide a service. They organize peer review, 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.14. But not, perhaps, for much longer. Support has been swelling for open-access scientific publishing: doing it on line, in a way that allows anyone to read papers free of charge. The movement started among scientists themselves, but governments are now, as Britains announcement makes clear, paying attention and asking whether they too might benefit from the change.15. The British announcement followed the publication of a report by Dame Janet Finch, a sociologist at the University of Manchester, which recommends encouraging a business model adopted by one of the pioneers of open-access publishing, the Public Library of Science. This organization, a charity based in San Francisco, charges authors a fee (between $1,350 and $2,900, though it is waived in cases of hardship) and then makes their papers available over the internet for nothing. For PLoS, as the charity is widely known, this works well. It has launched seven widely respected electronic journals since its foundation in 2000. For reasons lost in history, this is known as the gold model.16. The NIHs approach is different. It lets researchers publish in traditional journals, but on condition that, within a year, they post their papers on a free repository website called PubMed. Journals have to agree to this, or be excluded from the process. This is known as the green model.17. Both gold and green models involve pre-publication peer review. But a third does away with even that. Many scientists, physicists in particular, now upload drafts of their papers into public archives paid for by networks of universities for the general good. (The most popular is known as arXivn, the middle letter being a Greek chi.) Here, manuscripts are subject to a ruthless process of open peer review, rather than the secret sort traditional publishers employ. An arXived paper may end up in a traditional journal, but that is merely to provide a public mark of approval for the research team who wrote it. Its actual publication and its value to other scientists date from its original arrival online.18. The success of PLoS,