??2020年text 2（英语一）

scientific publishing has long been a licence to print money. scientists need joumals 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?fnd 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 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 characterises 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.

?

2019年text 2（英语二）

forests give us shade, quiet and one of the larder callenges in the fight against

climate change. even as we humans count on forests to soak up a good share of the

carbon dioxide we produce, we are threatening their ability to do so. the climate change we are hastening could one day leave us with forests that emit more carbon than they

absorb.

thankfully, there is

a way out of this trap—but it involves striking a subtle balance. helping forests flourish as valuable “carbon sinks” long into the future may require?reducing their capacity to absorb carbon now. california is leading the way, as it does on so

many climate efforts, in figuring out the details.

　　the state’s proposed forest carbon plan aims to double efforts to thin out young trees and clear brush in parts of the forest. this temporarily lowers carbon-carrying capacity. but the remaining trees draw a greater share of the available moisture, so they grow and thrive, restoring the forest’s capacity to pull carbon from the air. healthy trees are also better able to fend off insects. the landscape is rendered less easily burnable. even in the event of a fine, fewer trees are consumed.

　　the need for such planning is increasingly urgent. already, since 2010, drought and insects have killed over 100 million trees in california, most of them in 2016 alone, and wildfires have burned hundreds of thousands of acres.

　　california plans to treat 35,000 acres of forest a year by 2020, and 60,000 by 2030- financed from the proceeds of the state’s emissions- permit auctions. that’s only a small share of the total acreage that could benefit, about half a million acres in all, so it will be vital to prioritize areas at greatest risk of fire or drought.

　　the strategy also aims to ensure that carbon in woody material removed from the forests is locked away in the form of solid lumber or burned as biofuel in vehicles that would otherwise run on fossil fuels. new research on transportation biofuels is already under way.

state governments are well accustomed to managing forests, but traditionally they’ve focused on wildlife, watersheds and opportunities for recreation. only recently have they come to see the vital part forests will have to play in storing carbon. california’s plan, which is expected to be finalized by the governor next year, should serve as a model.

26. by saying “one of the harder challenges,” the author implies that _______.

　　a. global climate change may get out of control

　　b. people may misunderstand global warming

　　c. extreme weather conditions may arise

　　d. forests may become a potential threat

27. to maintain forests as valuable “carbon sinks,” we may need to _______.

　　a. preserve the diversity of species in them

　　b. accelerate the growth of young trees

　　c. strike a balance among different plants

　　d. lower their present carbon-absorbing capacity

28. california’s forest carbon plan endeavors to _______.

　　a. cultivate more drought-resistant trees

　　b. reduce the density of some of its forests

　　c. find more effective ways to kill insects

　　d. restore its forests quickly after wildfires

29. what is essential to california’s plan according to paragraph 5?

　　a.to handle the areas in serious danger first.

　　b.to carry it out before the year of 2020.

　　c.to perfect the emissions-permit auctions.

　　d.to obtain enough financial support.

30. the author’s attitude to california’s plan can best be described as _______.

　　a. ambiguous

　　b. tolerant

　　c. supportive

　　d. cautious

?????