★英語聽力頻道為大家整理的普特英語聽力網(wǎng)：經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)人學(xué)術(shù)期刊面臨徹底改變，供大家參考!
Science and technology.
科技。
Scientific publishing.
科技出版業(yè)。
Brought to book.
好書來了。
Academic journals face a radical shake-up.
學(xué)術(shù)期刊面臨徹底改變。
IF THERE is any endeavour whose fruits should be freely available, that endeavour is surely publicly financed science. Morally, taxpayers who wish to should be able to read about it without further expense. And science advances through cross-fertilisation between projects. Barriers to that exchange slow it down.
如果有人試圖把成果免費(fèi)公開的話，那他一定是科學(xué)資助者，確實(shí)，納稅人都希望不再花額外的錢來閱讀科學(xué)著作，并且科學(xué)的進(jìn)步也是通過各個(gè)學(xué)科之間的相互促進(jìn)吸收，而其間的交流障礙使這種進(jìn)步慢了下來。
There is a widespread feeling that the journal publishers who have mediated this exchange for the past century or more are becoming an impediment to it.
在過去一個(gè)世紀(jì)，期刊出版商給人廣泛的感覺就是他們調(diào)停了這種交流，甚至阻礙了這種交流。
One of the latest converts is the British government. On July 16th it announced that, from 2013, the results of taxpayer-financed research would be available, free and online, for anyone to read and redistribute.
而最新的改變發(fā)生在英國政府身上，它在7月16宣布，從2013年開始，由納稅人資助的科研成果都會(huì)在網(wǎng)上免費(fèi)公開，并且任何人都可以閱讀和轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)。
Britain's government is not alone. On July 17th the European Union followed suit. It proposes making research paid for by its next scientific-spending round-which runs from 2014 to 2020, and will hand out about €80 billion, or $100 billion, in grants-similarly easy to get hold of.
并不是只有英國政府這么做，17日歐盟也緊隨其后，建議下一個(gè)科研經(jīng)費(fèi)周期(2014年至2020年用于研究的開支)拿出800億歐元(1000億美元)來補(bǔ)貼類似易于獲取資料的方法。
In America, the National Institutes of Health (NIH, the single-biggest source of civil research funds in the world) has required open-access publishing since 2008.
在美國，國家衛(wèi)生研究所(NIH，世界上的單一民間科研基金獲取處)從2008年開始就要求開放出版業(yè)。
And the Wellcome Trust, a British foundation that is the world's second-biggest charitable source of scientific money, after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, also insists that those who take its shilling make their work available free.
僅次于比爾和梅林達(dá)?蓋茨基金會(huì)的英國維康信托基金是世界上第二大科研資金獲取來源，也堅(jiān)持——要用我的錢就必須免費(fèi)公開成果。
Criticism of journal publishers usually boils down to two things.
而期刊出版商對此的批判常常歸結(jié)為兩件事。
One is that their processes take months, when the internet could allow them to take days.
一是他們對資料的處理要花費(fèi)數(shù)月，實(shí)際上有互聯(lián)網(wǎng)他們只需要花費(fèi)數(shù)天。
The other is that because each paper is like a mini-monopoly, which workers in the field have to read if they are to advance their own research, there is no incentive to keep the price down.
另一個(gè)原因就是由于每篇論文就像一個(gè)小型壟斷，相關(guān)領(lǐng)域的工作者想要提升研究水平就必須得閱讀那些論文，這樣根本沒有動(dòng)機(jī)把價(jià)格降下來，
In 2011 Elsevier, a large Dutch publisher, made a profit of ￡768m on revenues of ￡2.06 billion-a margin of 37%. Indeed, Elsevier's profits are thought so egregious by many people that 12,000 researchers have signed up to a boycott of the company's journals.
在2011年，荷蘭出版商愛思唯爾(Elsevier)從20.6億歐元的投資中獲取了7.68億歐元的回報(bào)——利潤達(dá)到了37%，如此高的收益被認(rèn)為太過分，因此愛思唯爾遭到了12000名研究人員的聯(lián)名抵制。
A golden future?
未來一片光明?
Publishers do provide a service. They organise peer review, in which papers are criticised anonymously by experts (though those experts, like the authors of papers, are rarely paid for what they do). And they sort the scientific sheep from the goats, by deciding what gets published, and where.
出版商也確實(shí)做了一些工作，他們要對論文經(jīng)行同業(yè)互查(盡管那些化名點(diǎn)評(píng)的專家，比如論文作者，基本不會(huì)對核查工作收費(fèi))，并且還要對論文進(jìn)行分類和挑選，決定是否出版和在哪里出版。
That gives the publishers huge power. Since researchers, administrators and grant-awarding bodies all take note of which work has got through this filtering mechanism, the competition to publish in the best journals is intense, and the system becomes self-reinforcing, increasing the value of those journals still further.
這就給了出版商很大的權(quán)利，因?yàn)檠芯空?、管理員和撥款獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)機(jī)構(gòu)都在注意誰的論文通過了這個(gè)過濾機(jī)制，在的期刊上發(fā)表論文的競爭非常激烈，出版系統(tǒng)就變得更加自我強(qiáng)化，也推高了那些期刊的價(jià)值。
But not, perhaps, for much longer. Support has been swelling for open-access scientific publishing: doing it online, in a way that allows anyone to read papers free of charge.
或許以后不會(huì)再這樣了，支持開放科學(xué)出版業(yè)的呼聲越來越強(qiáng)烈：把研究成果放到網(wǎng)上，讓任何人都可以免費(fèi)查閱。
The movement started among scientists themselves, but governments are now, as Britain's announcement makes clear, paying attention and asking whether they, too, might benefit from the change.
這個(gè)運(yùn)動(dòng)開始由科學(xué)家發(fā)起，但是現(xiàn)在政府也站了出來，比如英國政府的通告就很清楚，它不僅在關(guān)注此事，還詢問科學(xué)家們是否可以從這個(gè)變化中受益
The British announcement followed the publication of a report by Dame Janet Finch, a sociologist at the University of Manchester, which recommends encouraging a business model adopted by one of the pioneers of open-access publishing, the Public Library of Science.
Dame Janet Finch的報(bào)告發(fā)表之后英國政府才發(fā)出通告，這位曼徹斯特大學(xué)的社會(huì)學(xué)家建議鼓勵(lì)一種商業(yè)模式，這個(gè)方法被一家開放出版業(yè)的先鋒——公共科學(xué)圖書館所采納。
This organisation, a charity based in San Francisco, charges authors a fee (between $1,350 and $2,900, though it is waived in cases of hardship) and then makes their papers available over the internet for nothing.
公共科學(xué)圖書館是一家位于舊金山的慈善組織，它會(huì)付給作者一筆費(fèi)用(1350至2900美元不等，盡管有困難會(huì)推遲)，然后再把他們的論文在網(wǎng)上免費(fèi)公開。
For PLoS, as the charity is widely known, this works well. It has launched seven widely respected electronic journals since its foundation in 2000. For reasons lost in history, this is known as the gold model.
對于公共科學(xué)圖書館(PLoS)來說，它的慈善事業(yè)廣為人知，并且做得很好，并且從2000成立開始，已經(jīng)出版了7大類備受推崇的電子期刊，雖然由于各種各樣的原因，它們都淹沒在歷史的塵埃中，這種方式被稱為 "黃金模式"。
The NIH's approach is different. It lets researchers publish in traditional journals, but on condition that, within a year, they post their papers on a free "repository" website called PubMed. Journals have to agree to this, or be excluded from the process. This is known as the green model.
國家衛(wèi)生研究所(NIH)的方法不一樣，它允許傳統(tǒng)學(xué)術(shù)期刊發(fā)表研究人員的論文，但是有一個(gè)條件，就是在一年之內(nèi)他的論文會(huì)在一家名為PubMed網(wǎng)站的免費(fèi)"知識(shí)庫"中公布，期刊出版商必須同意這么做，要么就會(huì)被排除在該程序之外，這就被稱為"綠色模式"。
Both gold and green models involve prepublication peer review. But a third does away with even that.
不管是黃金模式還是綠色模式都涉及到正式出版前的同業(yè)互查問題，但第三種就不需要這樣了。
Many scientists, physicists in particular, now upload drafts of their papers into public archives paid for by networks of universities for the general good. (The most popular is known as arXiv, the middle letter being a Greek chi.) Here, manuscripts are subject to a ruthless process of open peer review, rather than the secret sort traditional publishers employ.
現(xiàn)在很多科學(xué)家(特別是物理學(xué)家)都為共同利益而把他們的草稿上傳到由大學(xué)運(yùn)營的網(wǎng)絡(luò)公共檔案館中(最的就是arXiv，單詞中間為希臘第22個(gè)字母)，在這里，手稿都暴露在嚴(yán)格的同業(yè)互查之下，而不是被傳統(tǒng)出版商私下分類。
An arXived paper may end up in a traditional journal, but that is merely to provide an imprimatur for the research team who wrote it. Its actual publication, and its value to other scientists, dates from its original arrival online.
一份被arXiv化論文可能會(huì)以傳統(tǒng)期刊的出版而結(jié)束，但這僅僅只是為研究小組(論文作者)提供出版許可，它的實(shí)際出版物，還有對其他科學(xué)家的價(jià)值和原始數(shù)據(jù)都可以在網(wǎng)上找到。
The success of PLoS, and the political shift towards open access, is encouraging other new ventures, too.
科學(xué)公共圖書館的成功讓其把政策轉(zhuǎn)向開放閱覽，這也鼓勵(lì)了其他新的投資者。
Seeing the writing on the wall, several commercial publishers are experimenting with gold-model publishing.
在看到這些"不祥之兆"后，一些商業(yè)出版商開始嘗試以"黃金模式"出版。
Meanwhile, later this year, a coalition of the Wellcome Trust, the Max Planck Institute (which runs many of Germany's leading laboratories) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute will publish the first edition of eLife, an open-access journal with ambitions to rival the most famous journal of the lot, Nature. The deep pockets of these organisations mean that, for the first few years at least, this journal will not even require a publication fee.
與此同時(shí)，在今年晚些時(shí)候，馬普研究院(掌管著德國大量重點(diǎn)實(shí)驗(yàn)室)和霍華休斯醫(yī)學(xué)研究中心將與維康信托基金會(huì)合作，出版首期eLife電子期刊，這份開放閱覽的期刊有信心與它們之中最的《自然》競爭，那些財(cái)大氣粗的組織甚至想至少在頭幾年不對期刊收取出版費(fèi)。
Much remains to be worked out.
仍然還有許多要解決的東西。
Some fear the loss of the traditional journals' curation and verification of research.
一些人擔(dān)心會(huì)失去傳統(tǒng)期刊的內(nèi)容治理和調(diào)查核實(shí)。
Even Sir Mark Walport, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a fierce advocate of open-access publication, worries that a system based on the green model could become fragmented.
甚至維康信托基金會(huì)的主管和開放出版的堅(jiān)定支持者M(jìn)ark Walport先生也擔(dān)心基于綠色模式的系統(tǒng)會(huì)分崩離析。
That might happen if the newly liberated papers ended up in different places rather than being consolidated in the way the NIH insists on.
如果新式寬松論文政策被某些原因終結(jié)而不是如NIH所堅(jiān)持走統(tǒng)一合并的路子，這一切就有可能發(fā)生。
But research just published in BMC Medicine (an open-access journal from Springer) suggests papers in open-access journals are as widely cited as those in traditional publications.
是根據(jù)《BMC醫(yī)學(xué)》(施普林格出版社的一份開放期刊)最近公布的調(diào)查顯示，開放閱覽期刊被引用的廣泛程度和傳統(tǒng)期刊一樣多。
A revolution, then, has begun. Technology permits it; researchers and politicians want it.
所以一場革命已經(jīng)開始了，不僅技術(shù)上可行，研究人員和政客也需要。
If scientific publishers are not trembling in their boots, they should be.
如果傳統(tǒng)科技圖書出版商沒有覺得膽戰(zhàn)心驚的話，那現(xiàn)在就是時(shí)候了。