2020年考研英语一阅读 Text 2 原文翻译及答案解析

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.

科学出版长期以来一直是印钞许可证。科学家需要期刊来发表他们的研究，因此他们会无偿提供文章。其他科学家也无偿执行同行评审的专业工作，因为这是获取地位和生产科学知识的核心要素。

With the content of papers secured for free, the publisher needs only 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.

由于论文内容免费获得，出版商只需为其期刊找到市场。直到本世纪，大学图书馆对价格并不太敏感。科学出版商经常报告其运营利润率接近40%，而此时其他出版业正面临生存危机。

The Dutch giant Elsevier, which claims to publish 25% of the scientific papers produced in the world, made profits of more than砂OOm 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.

荷兰巨头Elsevier声称出版了全球25%的科学论文，去年利润超过3亿欧元，而仅英国大学在2016年就花费了超过2.1亿英镑，以使研究人员能够访问他们自己的公共资助研究；尽管越来越绝望的努力试图改变这些数字，但似乎仍在不可阻挡地上升。

The most drastic, an 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.

最激烈且完全非法的反应是Sci-Hub的出现，这是一种科学论文的全球复印机，成立于2012年，现在声称提供自2015年以来发表的每篇付费墙文章的访问。Sci-Hub的成功依赖于研究人员传递他们自己合法访问的副本，这表明法律生态系统在其用户中已失去合法性，必须进行改革，以便为所有参与者服务。

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.

在英国，向开放获取出版的转变是由资助机构推动的。在某种程度上，它非常成功。超过一半的英国科学研究现在以开放获取条款发表：要么从发表之日起免费提供，要么付费墙限制一年或更长时间，以便出版商在公开发行前获利。

Yet the new system has not yet worked out any cheaper for the universities. Publishers have responded to the demand that they make their product free to readers by charging their w门ters fees to cover the costs of prep ring an article. These range from around眨00 to $5,000, and apparently the work gets more expensive the more that publishers do it. 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.

然而，新系统对大学来说尚未变得更便宜。出版商通过向作者收费来应对使其产品对读者免费的需求，以支付准备文章的成本。这些费用从约1500美元到5000美元不等，而且显然，出版商做得越多，工作成本就越高。去年的一份报告指出，订阅费和这些“文章准备成本”的费用一直在以高于通货膨胀的速度稳步上升。

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 伍ms who run the market places. In both cases, we need a rebalancing of power.

在某种程度上，科学出版模式类似于社交互联网的经济：劳动力免费提供，以换取地位的希望，而运营市场的大公司则赚取巨额利润。在这两种情况下，我们都需要权力的再平衡。