刷题刷出新高度，偷偷领先！偷偷领先！偷偷领先！ 关注我们，悄悄成为最优秀的自己！
单选题
Scientific publishing has long been a licence to print money.Scientists need journals in which to publish their research, so they will supply the articles without monetary reward. Other scientists perform the specialised work of peer review also for free, because it is a central element in the acquisition of status and the production of scientific knowledge. With the content of papers secured for free, the publisher needs only to find a market for its journal. Until this century, university libraries were not very price sensitive. Scientific publishers routinely report profit margins approaching 40% on their operations, at a time when the rest of the publishing industry is in an existential crisis. The Dutch giant Elsevier, which claims to publish 25% of the scientific papers produced in the world, made profits of more than $900m last year, while UK universities alone spent more than $210m in 2016 to enable researchers to access their own publicly funded research; both figures seem to rise unstoppably despite increasingly desperate efforts to change them. The most drastic, and thoroughly illegal, reaction has been the emergence of Sci-Hub, a kind of global photocopier for scientific papers, set up in 2012, which now claims to offer access to every paywalled article published since 2015. The success of Sci-Hub, which relies on researchers passing on copies they have themselves legally accessed, shows the legal ecosystem has lost legitimacy among its users and must be transformed so that it works for all participants. In Britain the move towards open access publishing has been driven by funding bodies. In some ways it has been very successful. More than half of all British scientific research is now published under open access terms: either freely available from the moment of publication, or pay walled for a year or more so that the publishers can make a profit before being placed on general release. Yet the new system has not worked out any cheaper for the universities. Publishers have responded to the demand that they make their product free to readers by charging their writers fees to cover the costs of preparing an article. These range from around $500 to $5,000. A report last year pointed out that the costs both of subscriptions and of these “article preparation costs” had been steadily rising at a rate above inflation. In someways the scientific publishing model resembles the economy of the social internet: labour is provided free in exchange for the hope of status, while huge profits are made by a few big firms who run the market places. In both cases, we need a rebalancing of power.
Scientific publishing is seen as “a license to print money” partly because .
A
B
C
D
使用微信搜索喵呜刷题，轻松应对考试！
答案：
解析：
科学出版被视为“印刷金钱的许可”部分是因为其内容获取成本为零。科学家需要在期刊上发表他们的研究，因此他们会免费提供文章，其他科学家也免费进行同行评审的专门工作，因为这是获得地位和科学知识的核心要素。因此，选项D正确，其他选项在文中未提及或者与原文内容不符。
创作类型：
原创
本文链接：Scientific publishing is seen as “a license to pri
版权声明：本站点所有文章除特别声明外，均采用 CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 许可协议。转载请注明文章出处。让学习像火箭一样快速，微信扫码，获取考试解析、体验刷题服务，开启你的学习加速器！
分享考题 
