Reading Comprehension Text 2

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 paywalled 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 some ways 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.

26. Scientific publishing is seen as “a licence to print money” partly because

[A]

its funding has enjoyed a steady increase. 

[B]

its marketing strategy has been successful. 

[C]

its payment for peer review is reduced. 

[D]

its content acquisition costs nothing. 

27. According to Paragraphs 2 and 3, scientific publishers like Elsevier have

[A]

thrived mainly on university libraries. 

[B]

gone through an existential crisis. 

[C]

revived the publishing industry. 

[D]

financed researchers generously. 

28. How does the author feel about the success of Sci-Hub?

[A]

Relieved. 

[B]

Puzzled. 

[C]

Concerned. 

[D]

Encouraged. 

29. It can be learned from Paragraphs 5 and 6 that open access terms

[A]

allow publishers some room to make money. 

[B]

render publishing much easier for scientists. 

[C]

reduce the cost of publication substantially. 

[D]

free universities from financial burdens. 

30. Which of the following characterizes the scientific publishing model?

[A]

Trial subscription is offered. 

[B]

Labour triumphs over status. 

[C]

Costs are well controlled. 

[D]

The few feed on the many. 

答案与解析 (Answers)

26. [D] its content acquisition costs nothing.
解析：第一段明确指出，科学家需要发表论文但没有金钱回报（without monetary reward），并且同行评审也是免费的（also for free）。第二段首句总结“With the content of papers secured for free（由于免费获得了论文内容）”，所以它被视为“摇钱树”是因为内容获取的成本为零。

27. [A] thrived mainly on university libraries.
解析：第二段提到直到本世纪，“university libraries were not very price sensitive（大学图书馆对价格不是很敏感）”，出版商利润率高达40%。第三段进一步以 Elsevier 为例，指出大学花费巨资获取研究，说明它们主要依靠大学图书馆繁荣发展（thrived mainly on）。

28. [C] Concerned.
解析：第四段提到 Sci-Hub 的成功显示出“the legal ecosystem has lost legitimacy among its users and must be transformed（合法的生态系统已在用户中丧失了合法性，并且必须转型）”。使用“illegal”、“lost legitimacy”、“must be transformed”等词表明作者对现有合法系统的崩坏和这种彻底非法的反应感到**担忧（Concerned）**。

29. [A] allow publishers some room to make money.
解析：第五段指出开放获取的条款包括“paywalled for a year or more so that the publishers can make a profit before being placed on general release（设置一年或更长时间的付费墙，以便出版商在全面发布前赚取利润）”。第六段也提到出版商通过向作者收取版面费赚钱，所以说明开放获取依然给出版商留有赚钱的余地（allow some room to make money）。

30. [D] The few feed on the many.
解析：最后一段对科学出版模式进行了总结类比：“labour is provided free... while huge profits are made by a few big firms（劳动免费提供……而巨额利润被少数大公司赚取）”，这完美对应选项D“少数人靠多数人供养/牟利（The few feed on the many）”。

核心长难句精解 (Highlighted Sentences)

1. 并列句与原因状语从句嵌套：
"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."
【解析】peer review（同行评审）是学术出版的核心词汇。because 引导原因状语从句，解释科学家为何愿意“打白工”——为了获取学术地位和生产知识。
【翻译】其他科学家也免费执行着同行评审这项专业工作，因为这是获取学术地位和生产科学知识的一个核心要素。

2. 非限制性定语从句与宾语从句：
"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."
【解析】主语是 The success of Sci-Hub。which 引导非限制性定语从句，解释其运作方式；they have themselves legally accessed 又是省略了 that 的定语从句修饰 copies。谓语是 shows，其后省略 that 引导宾语从句。
【翻译】Sci-Hub 的成功依赖于研究人员传递他们自己合法获取的副本，这表明现有的法律生态系统已在用户中丧失了正当性，必须进行彻底改造以便让所有参与者受益。

3. 隐喻与对比结构：
"In some ways 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."
【解析】resemble 意为“类似于”。冒号后解释具体表现。while 表对比，凸显了免费劳动提供者与攫取巨额利润的“平台垄断者（a few big firms）”之间极度不平等的剥削关系。
【翻译】在某些方面，科学出版模式类似于社交互联网经济：人们免费提供劳动以换取对地位的期望，而经营这些市场的少数大公司则赚取了巨额利润。