Directions: In this section you will read several passages. Each one is followed by several questions about it. You are to choose ONE best answer, A. B. C. or D. to each question. The momentum towards open publishing looks unstoppable but more still needs to be done to make science truly accessible, says Stephen Curry. If you would like to read the latest research from my lab, be my guest. Our report on a protein from a mouse version of the winter vomiting virus has just been published in the journal PLoS One and is available online for free—to anyone. Contrast that with my first paper, published in 1990, which you could only have read if you had access to a university library with an expensive subscription to the journal Biochemistry. Back in 1990—before the world wide web—that was how scientific publishing was done. Today it is being transformed by open access publishers like the Public Library of Science. Rather than being funded by journal subscriptions, these publishers charge authors or their institutions the cost of publication and make their papers available for free online. Many scientists are passionate supporters of open access and want to see the old model swept away. They have launched a protest movement dubbed the Academic Spring and organised a high-profile boycott of journals published by Elsevier. And the tide appears to be turning in their favour. This week the Finch Report, commissioned by the U.K. government, recommended that research papers—especially those funded by the taxpayer—should be made freely available to anyone who wants to read them. Advocates of open access claim it has major advantages over the subscription model that has been around since academic journals were invented in the 17th century. They argue that science operates more effectively when findings can be accessed freely and immediately by scientists around the world. Better yet, it allows new results to be data-mined using powerful web-crawling technology that might spot connections between data—insights that no individual would be likely to make. But if open access is so clearly superior, why has it not swept all before it The model has been around for a decade but about nine-tenths of the approximately 2 million research papers that appear every year are still published behind a paywall. Part of the reason is scientists’ reluctance to abandon traditional journals and the established ranking among them. Not all journals are equal—they are graded by impact factor, which reflects the average number of times that the papers they publish are cited by others. Nature’s impact factor is 36, one of the highest going, whereas Biochemistry’s is around 3.2. Biochemistry is well regarded—many journals have lower factors—but a paper in Nature is still a much greater prize. Unfortunately, it is prized for the wrong reasons. Impact factors apply to journals as a whole, not individual papers or their authors. Despite this, scientists are still judged on publications in high-impact journals; funding and promotion often depend on it. Consequently few are willing to risk bucking the trend. This has allowed several publishers to resist calls to abandon the subscription model. Another reason for the slowness of the revolution is concern about quality. Unlike many traditional journals, PLoS One does not assess the significance of research during peer review; it simply publishes all papers judged to be technically sound. However, this concern proved unfounded. PLoS One now publishes more papers than any other life science journal and has an impact factor of 4.4. The world of scientific publishing is slowly changing and the hegemony of established journals is being challenged. Shaken by the competition, more of them are offering variants of open access. At the high end of the market, Nature is about to face competition from eLife, an open access journal to be launched later this year. Adding to the momentum, U.K. government research councils are increasingly insisting that the research they pay for be published in open access journals. The European Union is poised to do the same for the science it funds. In the U.S., a bill now before Congress would require all large federal funders to make papers freely available no later than six months after publication. What is the main idea of this passage

A. Many scientists are supporters of open publishing.
B. Open publishing is not so superior as it seems, because it omits peer review.
C. More needs to be done to accelerate the process of open publishing.
D. Scientists’ dependence upon traditional journals and concern about quality slowed the development of open publishing.