The Internet has enabled the spread of information at lightning speed. This information revolution has created tremendous business opportunities for online publishers, but not all of them maintain proper quality-control mechanisms to ensure that only good information is being shared. Instead, many publishers aim simply to make money by whatever means possible, with no regard for the implications for society at large. When selfish publishers set up shops online, the primary goal is to publish as much as possible, often at the cost of quality. In this respect, many publishers start numerous online journals focused on overlapping (重叠的) disciplines—to increase their total number of published papers—and hire young business managers who do not have any experience in either science or publishing. In some cases, online publishers even give up peer review, while still presenting themselves as scientific journals—deception designed to take advantage of scientists who simply want to share their research. If publishers structure their business to make more revenue, it often does harm to their products. When publishers start journals with overlapping domains, in combination with the pressure to publish more studies, this could promote the publication of marginal or even questionable articles. Moreover, publishers with multiple overlapping journals and journals with very narrow specialties (专业) increase the demands on the time and efforts of willing reviewers. With the fact that reviewers are generally not compensated for their time and effort, journal editors are often unable to find enough reviewers to keep up with the increased publication rate. To improve the situation and increase the trust in scientific community, the pressure to publish must be reduced. Funding and promotion decisions should not be based on the number of publications, but on the quality of those publications and a researcher's long-term productivity and instructions. And that's just the start. We need additional mechanisms, such as Beau's list of predatory (掠夺的) publishers, to alert scientists to fake journals and fake articles. In addition, the price for online publication must be controlled and a mechanism must be put in place to honor and reward hard-working reviewers.1What does the author think of online publishers?A. small proportion of them can guarantee their publishing quality.B.They have lots of opportunities to renovate their business models.C.Many of them tend to try every means to make a buck.D.Social impact is their first priority when publishing books.2It can be inferred from the second paragraph that________.E.peer review generally is a criterion to identify academic journalsF.researchers focus their research on the combination of disciplinesG.scientists care about their publications rather than researchH.young business managers are willing to face new challenges3Why can’t publishers find enough reviewers to review papers?I.Reviewers are pressed for time when reviewing articles.J.Reviewers’ gains can’t make up for what they have done.K.Publishers may compel reviewers to accept marginal articles.L.Publishers urge reviewers to increase publication rate rapidly.4What is the author’s suggestion for online publication?M.More weight should be put on the quantity of publications.N.It is worthwhile to reward diligent reviewers for their efforts.O.Fake journals should be reported to a regulatory organization.P.The price of online publication should be lowered greatly.5What is the main idea of this passage?Q.Online publishers should take measures to fight against fake scientific journals.R.Online publishers are pursuing their work efficiency at the cost of quality.S.Online publishers’ business models are quite likely to harm their publications.T.Online publishers are sacrificing the quality of research articles to make money.