Pub Date : 2019-04-11DOI: 10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059006
D. Strang, Fedor A. Dokshin
This chapter extends research on peer review by utilizing and assessing an emerging methodology: automated textual analysis. In a corpus of 38 papers successfully revised for publication in Administrative Science Quarterly, the authors found that measures based on exact wording (measured by plagiarism detection) and sentence similarity (measured by Word Mover’s Distance) performed well in capturing differences between original submissions and published papers. They identified the same overall pattern of revision that authors reported (intensive revision of Theory and Discussion sections, limited modification of Methods), and were strongly correlated with the turnover in references and hypotheses that occurred in the course of peer review. Automated textual analysis can usefully contribute to the study of manuscript change in peer review and other social scientific contexts, particularly as available textual corpora grow in size.
{"title":"Chapter 5 Peer Review and the Production of Scholarly Knowledge: Automated Textual Analysis of Manuscripts Revised for Publication in Administrative Science Quarterly","authors":"D. Strang, Fedor A. Dokshin","doi":"10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059006","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter extends research on peer review by utilizing and assessing an emerging methodology: automated textual analysis. In a corpus of 38 papers successfully revised for publication in Administrative Science Quarterly, the authors found that measures based on exact wording (measured by plagiarism detection) and sentence similarity (measured by Word Mover’s Distance) performed well in capturing differences between original submissions and published papers. They identified the same overall pattern of revision that authors reported (intensive revision of Theory and Discussion sections, limited modification of Methods), and were strongly correlated with the turnover in references and hypotheses that occurred in the course of peer review. Automated textual analysis can usefully contribute to the study of manuscript change in peer review and other social scientific contexts, particularly as available textual corpora grow in size.","PeriodicalId":198270,"journal":{"name":"The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational Theory: New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory","volume":"48 18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114588800","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-11DOI: 10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059001
Gregory Jackson, Markus Helfen, R. Kaplan, A. Kirsch, Nora Lohmeyer
This chapter addresses the concern that much theory building in organization and management (OM) research suffers from de-contextualization. The authors argue that de-contextualization comes in two main forms: reductionism and grand theory. Whereas reductionism tends to downplay context in favor of individual behavior, grand theory looks at context only in highly abstract ahistorical terms. Such de-contextualization is problematic for at least two reasons. First, the boundary conditions of theories remain unexplored in ways that threaten scientific validity. Second, de-contextualization limits the potential of OM theory to fully understand the role of organizations in society and thereby address societal grand challenges. These claims are exemplified through critical reviews of four fields in OM research – gender, employee voice, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and institutional logics – and counterpoints that may help to overcome de-contextualized research are presented.
{"title":"Chapter 1 The Problem of De-contextualization in Organization and Management Research","authors":"Gregory Jackson, Markus Helfen, R. Kaplan, A. Kirsch, Nora Lohmeyer","doi":"10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059001","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter addresses the concern that much theory building in organization and management (OM) research suffers from de-contextualization. The authors argue that de-contextualization comes in two main forms: reductionism and grand theory. Whereas reductionism tends to downplay context in favor of individual behavior, grand theory looks at context only in highly abstract ahistorical terms. Such de-contextualization is problematic for at least two reasons. First, the boundary conditions of theories remain unexplored in ways that threaten scientific validity. Second, de-contextualization limits the potential of OM theory to fully understand the role of organizations in society and thereby address societal grand challenges. These claims are exemplified through critical reviews of four fields in OM research – gender, employee voice, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and institutional logics – and counterpoints that may help to overcome de-contextualized research are presented.","PeriodicalId":198270,"journal":{"name":"The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational Theory: New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128257418","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-11DOI: 10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059013
B. Gray
This chapter asks: ‘How often do we as social scientists question the validity of our theories and our findings? How often do we reflexively examine the distortions in the lenses we use to analyse organizations? ‘It proceeds to answer these questions by defining reflexivity and presenting six perspectives on reflexive analysis that build on and extend previous analytical treatments of reflexivity, especially that by Alvesson, Hardy, and Harley (2008). Illustrations of the six are drawn from my own experiences as well as those of other scholars. The intention is to stimulate greater interest in reflexivity and provoke other scholars to look more reflexively at their own work.
{"title":"Chapter 12 ‘Through the Looking Glass’: on Phantasmal Tales, Distortions and Reflexivity in Organizational Scholarship","authors":"B. Gray","doi":"10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059013","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter asks: ‘How often do we as social scientists question the validity of our theories and our findings? How often do we reflexively examine the distortions in the lenses we use to analyse organizations? ‘It proceeds to answer these questions by defining reflexivity and presenting six perspectives on reflexive analysis that build on and extend previous analytical treatments of reflexivity, especially that by Alvesson, Hardy, and Harley (2008). Illustrations of the six are drawn from my own experiences as well as those of other scholars. The intention is to stimulate greater interest in reflexivity and provoke other scholars to look more reflexively at their own work.","PeriodicalId":198270,"journal":{"name":"The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational Theory: New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory","volume":"06 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127202052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-11DOI: 10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059009
Laura Claus, M. D. Rond, Jennifer A. Howard-Grenville, J. Lodge
Abstract We explore the lived experience of organizational scholars who have conducted fieldwork in unsettling contexts. Through analyzing our interviews with these scholars, we find themes around the causes and consequences of unsettling fieldwork, and the coping strategies employed. We reflect on the often overlooked emotional and relational aspects of conducting and coping with unsettling fieldwork, and offer some suggestions for how scholars might support each other, especially given the increasing prevalence of organizational scholarship that pushes boundaries by engaging unconventional topics and settings.
{"title":"Chapter 8 When Fieldwork Hurts: On the Lived Experience of Conducting Research in Unsettling Contexts","authors":"Laura Claus, M. D. Rond, Jennifer A. Howard-Grenville, J. Lodge","doi":"10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059009","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \u0000We explore the lived experience of organizational scholars who have conducted fieldwork in unsettling contexts. Through analyzing our interviews with these scholars, we find themes around the causes and consequences of unsettling fieldwork, and the coping strategies employed. We reflect on the often overlooked emotional and relational aspects of conducting and coping with unsettling fieldwork, and offer some suggestions for how scholars might support each other, especially given the increasing prevalence of organizational scholarship that pushes boundaries by engaging unconventional topics and settings.","PeriodicalId":198270,"journal":{"name":"The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational Theory: New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123398790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-11DOI: 10.1108/s0733-558x20190000059010
A. Langley, Davide Ravasi
The authors conclude by discussing some of the strengths and weaknesses of visualization and by considering how new technologies may offer further possibilities for useful and insightful visual representations of qualitative data that can enhance theory-building.
{"title":"Chapter 9 Visual Artefacts as Tools for Analysis and Theorizing","authors":"A. Langley, Davide Ravasi","doi":"10.1108/s0733-558x20190000059010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/s0733-558x20190000059010","url":null,"abstract":"The authors conclude by discussing some of the strengths and weaknesses of visualization and by considering how new technologies may offer further possibilities for useful and insightful visual representations of qualitative data that can enhance theory-building.","PeriodicalId":198270,"journal":{"name":"The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational Theory: New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113955654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-11DOI: 10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059012
Chris Carter, Crawford Spence
This chapter argues that while Organization and Management Theory (OMT) appears in good health it stands on the precipice of a crisis of its own making. This stems from an overly self-referential and narrow focus on theoretical contribution, at the expense of a broader set of societal commitments. Paradoxically, this is particularly the case if a researcher is putatively engaging with broader societal issues. The central thesis advanced in this chapter is that researchers should be more socially reflexive about what they are researching, why they are researching it, and for whom. As a corollary, the chapter calls for researchers to interrogate the research that they are undertaking critically and to work out the broader social significance of their work. The chapter unfolds with concise analyses of two branches of OMT: the sociology of the professions and institutional theory. The chapter highlights how research into the professions runs the danger of being captured by the objects of its research: as researchers busy themselves examining pre-existing concepts, rather than exploring the power struggles that take place in particular fields. The chapter argues for a re-framing of research into the professions. The chapter highlights the rise of institutional theory to its current position of dominance within OMT. Institutional theory’s recent move to study ‘Grand Challenges’ is welcomed but also problematised. The chapter closes with reflections on a course of action for making OMT matter.
{"title":"Chapter 11 For Social Reflexivity in Organization and Management Theory","authors":"Chris Carter, Crawford Spence","doi":"10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059012","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter argues that while Organization and Management Theory (OMT) appears in good health it stands on the precipice of a crisis of its own making. This stems from an overly self-referential and narrow focus on theoretical contribution, at the expense of a broader set of societal commitments. Paradoxically, this is particularly the case if a researcher is putatively engaging with broader societal issues. The central thesis advanced in this chapter is that researchers should be more socially reflexive about what they are researching, why they are researching it, and for whom. As a corollary, the chapter calls for researchers to interrogate the research that they are undertaking critically and to work out the broader social significance of their work. The chapter unfolds with concise analyses of two branches of OMT: the sociology of the professions and institutional theory. The chapter highlights how research into the professions runs the danger of being captured by the objects of its research: as researchers busy themselves examining pre-existing concepts, rather than exploring the power struggles that take place in particular fields. The chapter argues for a re-framing of research into the professions. The chapter highlights the rise of institutional theory to its current position of dominance within OMT. Institutional theory’s recent move to study ‘Grand Challenges’ is welcomed but also problematised. The chapter closes with reflections on a course of action for making OMT matter.","PeriodicalId":198270,"journal":{"name":"The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational Theory: New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory","volume":"207 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123153817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-11DOI: 10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059002
W. Seibel
Abstract Pragmatism in the sense of harmonizing rules and reality for the sake of appropriate problem solving and overall performance is a ubiquitous phenomenon in organizational life. As such it has been generalized as an everyday requirement of making organizations work and a virtue of human decision making under the condition of complexity, strategic dilemmas or “wicked problems.” This chapter addresses both the theoretical and the normative dimensions of pragmatism in organizations, public administration in particular. The main statement is that the necessary theoretical clarification concerns the distinction between pragmatism and what is referred to as a logic of appropriateness while the normative limits of pragmatism refer to the necessity of ranking logics of appropriateness and related values plus the ability to act on the basis of accurate judgment which is primarily, even if not exclusively, a matter of leadership.
{"title":"Chapter 2 Pragmatism in Organizations: Ambivalence and Limits","authors":"W. Seibel","doi":"10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \u0000Pragmatism in the sense of harmonizing rules and reality for the sake of appropriate problem solving and overall performance is a ubiquitous phenomenon in organizational life. As such it has been generalized as an everyday requirement of making organizations work and a virtue of human decision making under the condition of complexity, strategic dilemmas or “wicked problems.” This chapter addresses both the theoretical and the normative dimensions of pragmatism in organizations, public administration in particular. The main statement is that the necessary theoretical clarification concerns the distinction between pragmatism and what is referred to as a logic of appropriateness while the normative limits of pragmatism refer to the necessity of ranking logics of appropriateness and related values plus the ability to act on the basis of accurate judgment which is primarily, even if not exclusively, a matter of leadership.","PeriodicalId":198270,"journal":{"name":"The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational Theory: New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125099069","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-11DOI: 10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059011
T. Reay, A. Zafar, Pedro Monteiro, Vern L. Glaser
In this chapter, the authors explore the state of our field in terms of ways to present qualitative findings. The authors analyze all articles based on qualitative research methods published in the Academy of Management Journal from 2010 to 2017 and supplement this by informally surveying colleagues about their “favorite” qualitative authors. As a result, the authors identify five ways of presenting qualitative findings in research articles. The authors suggest that each approach has advantages as well as limitations, and that the type of data and theorizing is an important consideration in determining the most appropriate approach for the presentation of findings. The authors hope that by identifying these approaches, they enrich the way authors, reviewers, and editors approach the presentation of qualitative findings.
在本章中，作者从呈现定性发现的方式方面探讨了我们领域的状态。作者根据2010年至2017年发表在《管理学院学报》(Academy of Management Journal)上的定性研究方法分析了所有文章，并通过非正式调查同事对他们“最喜欢”的定性作者进行了补充。因此，作者确定了在研究文章中呈现定性发现的五种方式。作者认为，每种方法都有优点和局限性，数据和理论的类型是决定最合适的方法来呈现研究结果的重要考虑因素。作者希望通过识别这些方法，他们丰富了作者、审稿人和编辑处理定性发现的方式。
{"title":"Chapter 10 Presenting Findings from Qualitative Research: One Size Does Not Fit All!","authors":"T. Reay, A. Zafar, Pedro Monteiro, Vern L. Glaser","doi":"10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059011","url":null,"abstract":"In this chapter, the authors explore the state of our field in terms of ways to present qualitative findings. The authors analyze all articles based on qualitative research methods published in the Academy of Management Journal from 2010 to 2017 and supplement this by informally surveying colleagues about their “favorite” qualitative authors. As a result, the authors identify five ways of presenting qualitative findings in research articles. The authors suggest that each approach has advantages as well as limitations, and that the type of data and theorizing is an important consideration in determining the most appropriate approach for the presentation of findings. The authors hope that by identifying these approaches, they enrich the way authors, reviewers, and editors approach the presentation of qualitative findings.","PeriodicalId":198270,"journal":{"name":"The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational Theory: New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116502567","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-11DOI: 10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059003
T. Zilber, J. Amis, J. Mair
In this introduction, the authors outline some critical reflections on the sociology of knowledge within management and organization theory. Based on a review of various works that form a sociology of organizational knowledge, the authors identify three approaches that have become particularly prominent ways by which scholars explore how knowledge about organizations and management is produced: First, reflective and opinion essays that organization studies scholars offer on the basis of what can be learned from personal experience; second, descriptive craft-guides that are based on more-or-less comprehensive surveys on doing research; third, papers based on systematic research that are built upon rigorous collection and analysis of data about the production of knowledge. Whereas in the studies of organizing the authors prioritize the third approach, that is knowledge produced based on systematic empirical research, in examining our own work the authors tend to privilege the other two types, reflective articles and surveys. In what follows the authors highlight this gap, offer some explanations thereof, and call for a better appreciation of all three ways to offer rich understandings of organizations, work and management as well as a fruitful sociology of knowledge in our field.
{"title":"Introduction Dismantling the Master’s House Using the Master’s Tools: On the Sociology of Organizational Knowledge","authors":"T. Zilber, J. Amis, J. Mair","doi":"10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059003","url":null,"abstract":"In this introduction, the authors outline some critical reflections on the sociology of knowledge within management and organization theory. Based on a review of various works that form a sociology of organizational knowledge, the authors identify three approaches that have become particularly prominent ways by which scholars explore how knowledge about organizations and management is produced: First, reflective and opinion essays that organization studies scholars offer on the basis of what can be learned from personal experience; second, descriptive craft-guides that are based on more-or-less comprehensive surveys on doing research; third, papers based on systematic research that are built upon rigorous collection and analysis of data about the production of knowledge. Whereas in the studies of organizing the authors prioritize the third approach, that is knowledge produced based on systematic empirical research, in examining our own work the authors tend to privilege the other two types, reflective articles and surveys. In what follows the authors highlight this gap, offer some explanations thereof, and call for a better appreciation of all three ways to offer rich understandings of organizations, work and management as well as a fruitful sociology of knowledge in our field.","PeriodicalId":198270,"journal":{"name":"The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational Theory: New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134411912","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-11DOI: 10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059005
Trin Thananusak, S. Ansari
Abstract The authors explore the emergence of altmetrics and Open Access (OA) publishing and discuss why their adoption in the management field lags behind other fields such as life sciences. The authors draw on the status literature to discuss the knowledge production and consumption underpinned by the ‘Impact Factor’ metric and high-status ‘Toll Access’ journals and their implications. The authors explain the rise of altmetrics and OA publishing and their implications on the production and consumption of knowledge. The authors then examine the current situation, challenges and offer reflections on the management field’s progression towards a more open research regime in the digital era.
{"title":"Chapter 4 Knowledge Production and Consumption in the Digital Era: The Emergence of Altmetrics and Open Access Publishing in Management Studies","authors":"Trin Thananusak, S. Ansari","doi":"10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059005","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \u0000The authors explore the emergence of altmetrics and Open Access (OA) publishing and discuss why their adoption in the management field lags behind other fields such as life sciences. The authors draw on the status literature to discuss the knowledge production and consumption underpinned by the ‘Impact Factor’ metric and high-status ‘Toll Access’ journals and their implications. The authors explain the rise of altmetrics and OA publishing and their implications on the production and consumption of knowledge. The authors then examine the current situation, challenges and offer reflections on the management field’s progression towards a more open research regime in the digital era.","PeriodicalId":198270,"journal":{"name":"The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational Theory: New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124041448","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：