单选题 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 authors" 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 Co-operation 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 ones were identified by the report"s authors. There is the so-called big deal, where institutional subscribers pay for access to a collection of online journal titles 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.

单选题 In the first paragraph, the author discusses

【正确答案】 D

【答案解析】[解析] 细节题。本题考查的是考生对第一段的理解。根据文章，第一段中，作者写道，实验室先把结果交给刊物，在编辑删除论文中作者和相关信息后，论文将交给专家来评审，以决定论文是否能发表。版权由杂志社保留。研究者必须订阅杂志才能查找此研究结果的相关文章。由此可以看出，这段话主要讲的是学术期刊的出版(科研成果的发表)过程及特点。因此D项“刊物出版的传统流程”正确。A项“刊物编辑的背景信息和选项”，B项“实验报告的出版流程”，C项“作者与出版商的关系”，都未能准确概括本段的含义。

单选题 Which of the following is true of the OECD report?

【正确答案】 C

【答案解析】[解析] 细节题。根据题干中的关键词OECD report可定位到第二段。通读第二段第三句至段尾可知，OECD的报告使至今一向获利丰厚的出版商们感到心情沉重(makes heavy reading for publishers)，而且报告还表明科学研究中一直很关键的一项因素发生了改变。因此C项为正确答案。A项偷换概念，报告批评的对象应该是“从政府投资的研究项目中牟利的出版商”，而不是研究项目本身。B项无法得知，在第四段中作者称该报告指出了三种新的出版模式，但没有对他们进行评价。D项为主观臆造，可排除。

单选题 According to the text, online publication is significant in that

【正确答案】 A

【答案解析】[解析] 推断题。先看一下本文的行文结构，文章第一段主要描述了传统的出版方式，这种方式下，科学工作者只能通过订阅刊物来了解科学成果。文章第二段介绍一种新型的出版方式——网络出版，使得科技人员容易获得科学成果。第三段谈到科学的价值和投资回报取决于杂志的发行量和易获得性。第四段具体介绍了网络出版这一新型的出版形式。从文章的中心是关于一种新的出版方式，以及它给科学杂志出版带来的影响——科学成果可以被科学工作者更方便获得。中心词含有access，可以确定答案为A项。