题目内容
J.K. Rowling’s first novel for adults, which treads on very different ground to her bestselling Harry Potter series, is set to become a publishing sensation when it hits bookshelves next week. Waterstones, the country’s biggest book-chain store, revealed that the comic novel, The Casual Vacancy, has received the largest number of pre-order sales this year. This number is believed to be five figured, although online pre-orders have reportedly reached well over a million already. The RRP for the paperback is ￡20 but many outlets are reducing this considerably with Waterstones pricing it at ￡10. The secrecy, as well as the excitement, around Rowling’s latest offering, has guaranteed its status as the biggest publishing event of the year. Waterstones is opening its doors an hour earlier than usual, at 8 a.m., on its official publication date next Thursday. Until then, Rowling’s publisher Little, Brown has stipulated that the books should not even appear on display. Staff will come in early to put out display copies and prepare for the crowds. Jon Howells, a spokesman for Waterstones, described it as one of the first "Super Thursdays" leading up to Christmas, not least because Jamie Oliver was also publishing his book, 15-Minute Meals, on the same day. Mr. Howells said that while he anticipated a big rush at the outset, the book would, in all likelihood, not inspire the equivalent of Pottermania. "Certainly, the anticipation for J.K. Rowling’s book has been great because it’s the first non-Harry Potter book and it is for a purely adult audience. I think it will see a fantastic level of first day and first weekend sales and after that people will come to it more steadily." "We are treating it as a very different thing from the Harry Potter books. The way readers will approach this will be different. A lot of the readers will be curious and interested in what this book can do for them. There was a huge sense of urgency with the Harry Potter books, and people wanted to read them quickly so that they would not find out the plot through other mediums, while this is a standalone story," he said. A spokeswoman for Tesco, which will also be stocking the book, said: "If the hits on the Tesco Books blog are anything to go by, we think it could be one of our bestselling books in the run-up to Christmas." The plot of the book, which revolves around the inhabitants of a small English town, has been fiercely guarded, and newspaper reviewers have been asked to sign the kind of long and stiffly worded pre-publication confidentiality contracts that a celebrity footballer might use to protect his darkest secrets. A limited number of copies will be delivered by hand to reviewers’ homes today. Rowling is due to attend her only question-and-answer session in front of a live audience in London on the day of publication. The event, at the 900-seat Queen Elizabeth Hall in the Southbank Centre, sold out within 48 hours and will also be attended by the world’s media. The Southbank Centre condemned the selling of single ￡12 tickets on eBay for ￡85 each. The event, which will last just under two hours including a 30-minute Q & A with the audience, will be transmitted in a live feed on YouTube. Rowling will sign books afterwards, and audience members are limited to one copy per person. Next month she will appear at the Cheltenham Literary Festival and sign copies there. Little, Brown refused to reveal the numbers of copies that have been printed so far—but the book is expected to sell millions. Rowling’s latest offering "treads on very different ground to her bestselling Harry Potter series" (para. 1) in that ______.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
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
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. In writing the article, the author demonstrates a(n) ______ attitude towards open publishing.
胃癌胃热伤阴证的方药是
下列哪项心跳骤停紧急处理原则是错误的
微信支付 
支付宝支付