Computers and Composition最新文献

英文中文

Leveraging ChatGPT for research writing: An exploration of ESL graduate students’ practices 利用ChatGPT进行研究写作：ESL研究生实践的探索

Q1 Arts and Humanities

Computers and Composition

Pub Date : 2025-04-26 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102934

Dongmei Cheng , Mimi Li , Tony Lee

This case study investigates how two ESL graduate students, Ian and Sam, use ChatGPT in their research writing after receiving a comprehensive tutorial based on Warschauer et al.’s (2023) AI literacy framework. We analyzed their engagement with ChatGPT across prompt categories including genre, content, language use, documentation, coherence, and clarity. Data were collected from research paper drafts, ChatGPT chat histories, and interviews. Data analyses included coding ChatGPT prompts, textual analysis of drafts, and thematic analysis of interview transcripts. Results show that while both participants utilized ChatGPT for understanding genre conventions and content development, they developed distinct approaches reflecting their individual backgrounds. Ian selectively used ChatGPT for specific assistance needs, while Sam engaged more systematically, particularly for APA style and coherence checks. Both approaches maintained academic integrity and scholarly voice, demonstrating that Generative AI tools can be effectively tailored to individual needs without compromising ethical standards. This study highlights how advanced ESL writers can adapt GenAI tools to their unique writing processes, offering insights into the diverse ways AI can enhance academic writing while preserving individual agency. The findings suggest that AI integration in academic writing can be customized to support diverse writing goals and backgrounds.

本案例研究调查了两位ESL研究生Ian和Sam在接受基于Warschauer等人（2023）的人工智能读写框架的综合教程后，如何在他们的研究写作中使用ChatGPT。我们分析了他们对ChatGPT的参与情况，包括提示类型、内容、语言使用、文档、一致性和清晰度。数据收集自研究论文草稿、ChatGPT聊天记录和访谈。数据分析包括编码ChatGPT提示、草稿的文本分析和采访记录的主题分析。结果表明，虽然两位参与者都使用ChatGPT来理解类型惯例和内容开发，但他们开发了反映其个人背景的不同方法。Ian有选择地使用ChatGPT来满足特定的援助需求，而Sam则更系统地使用，特别是在APA风格和连贯性检查方面。这两种方法都保持了学术诚信和学术声音，表明生成式人工智能工具可以有效地根据个人需求量身定制，而不会损害道德标准。这项研究强调了高级ESL作者如何将GenAI工具适应他们独特的写作过程，为人工智能在保留个人能动性的同时提高学术写作的多种方式提供了见解。研究结果表明，学术写作中的人工智能集成可以定制，以支持不同的写作目标和背景。

{"title":"Leveraging ChatGPT for research writing: An exploration of ESL graduate students’ practices","authors":"Dongmei Cheng , Mimi Li , Tony Lee","doi":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102934","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102934","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This case study investigates how two ESL graduate students, Ian and Sam, use ChatGPT in their research writing after receiving a comprehensive tutorial based on Warschauer et al.’s (2023) AI literacy framework. We analyzed their engagement with ChatGPT across prompt categories including genre, content, language use, documentation, coherence, and clarity. Data were collected from research paper drafts, ChatGPT chat histories, and interviews. Data analyses included coding ChatGPT prompts, textual analysis of drafts, and thematic analysis of interview transcripts. Results show that while both participants utilized ChatGPT for understanding genre conventions and content development, they developed distinct approaches reflecting their individual backgrounds. Ian selectively used ChatGPT for specific assistance needs, while Sam engaged more systematically, particularly for APA style and coherence checks. Both approaches maintained academic integrity and scholarly voice, demonstrating that Generative AI tools can be effectively tailored to individual needs without compromising ethical standards. This study highlights how advanced ESL writers can adapt GenAI tools to their unique writing processes, offering insights into the diverse ways AI can enhance academic writing while preserving individual agency. The findings suggest that AI integration in academic writing can be customized to support diverse writing goals and backgrounds.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":35773,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Composition","volume":"76 ","pages":"Article 102934"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143876514","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}

引用次数: 0

Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR): A human-centered approach to formative assessment 同伴和人工智能审查+反思（PAIRR）：以人为中心的形成性评估方法

Q1 Arts and Humanities

Computers and Composition

Pub Date : 2025-04-23 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102921

Lisa Sperber , Marit MacArthur , Sophia Minnillo , Nicholas Stillman , Carl Whithaus

Cycles of drafting and revising are crucial for student writers' growth, and formative assessment plays an important role. However, many teachers lack the time or resources to provide feedback on drafts. While research suggests that AI feedback is high enough quality to be used for draft feedback, especially when assignment-specific criteria are used (Steiss et al., 2024), it must be used in a human-centered process. AI has the potential to reduce educational equity gaps in writing support (Warschauer et al., 2023), but when narrowly implemented, technologies can deepen divides (Stornaiuolo, et al., 2023). Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR) combines peer review best practices with AI review in an approach that emphasizes student agency and reflection. Using a mixed methods approach, this study examined student perceptions of AI utility in the context of peer review. Results indicate that AI tools offer useful feedback when combined with peer review. Students found the similarity between AI and peer feedback reassuring, while also valuing their complementary perspectives. Moreover, by evaluating AI outputs, students developed AI literacy, gaining familiarity with AI feedback's affordances and limitations while learning ethical ways to use AI in their writing processes.

写作和修改的周期对学生作家的成长至关重要，形成性评价起着重要的作用。然而，许多教师缺乏时间或资源来对草稿提供反馈。虽然研究表明，人工智能反馈的质量足够高，可以用于草案反馈，特别是当使用特定任务的标准时（Steiss等人，2024），但它必须用于以人为中心的流程。人工智能有可能减少写作支持方面的教育公平差距（Warschauer等人，2023），但当狭隘地实施时，技术会加深鸿沟（Stornaiuolo等人，2023）。同行和人工智能审查+反思（PAIRR）将同行审查的最佳实践与人工智能审查结合起来，强调学生的代理和反思。本研究采用混合方法，考察了学生在同行评议背景下对人工智能效用的看法。结果表明，人工智能工具在与同行评审相结合时提供了有用的反馈。学生们发现人工智能和同伴反馈之间的相似性令人放心，同时也重视他们的互补观点。此外，通过评估人工智能输出，学生们培养了人工智能素养，熟悉了人工智能反馈的优点和局限性，同时学习了在写作过程中使用人工智能的道德方式。

{"title":"Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR): A human-centered approach to formative assessment","authors":"Lisa Sperber , Marit MacArthur , Sophia Minnillo , Nicholas Stillman , Carl Whithaus","doi":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102921","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102921","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Cycles of drafting and revising are crucial for student writers' growth, and formative assessment plays an important role. However, many teachers lack the time or resources to provide feedback on drafts. While research suggests that AI feedback is high enough quality to be used for draft feedback, especially when assignment-specific criteria are used (Steiss et al., 2024), it must be used in a human-centered process. AI has the potential to reduce educational equity gaps in writing support (Warschauer et al., 2023), but when narrowly implemented, technologies can deepen divides (Stornaiuolo, et al., 2023). Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR) combines peer review best practices with AI review in an approach that emphasizes student agency and reflection. Using a mixed methods approach, this study examined student perceptions of AI utility in the context of peer review. Results indicate that AI tools offer useful feedback when combined with peer review. Students found the similarity between AI and peer feedback reassuring, while also valuing their complementary perspectives. Moreover, by evaluating AI outputs, students developed AI literacy, gaining familiarity with AI feedback's affordances and limitations while learning ethical ways to use AI in their writing processes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":35773,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Composition","volume":"76 ","pages":"Article 102921"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143859253","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}

引用次数: 0

Failing machines: Applied rhetorics for scalability, continuity, and sustainability of digital projects in the humanities 失败的机器：人文学科数字项目可扩展性、连续性和可持续性的应用修辞学

Q1 Arts and Humanities

Computers and Composition

Pub Date : 2025-04-22 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102935

Eric J. York

Current approaches to questions regarding the lifespan of digital projects are overly materialistic and insufficiently describe important factors of survivability, especially for those in the humanities. Rather than employing such a naïve approach, the author illustrates the primarily discursive issues of ambiguity, representation, and flexibility by examining key time periods in the lifespans of six digital humanities projects: periods of growth, of decline, and of stagnancy. The author develops a framework for better considering issues of scalability, continuity and sustainability in digital projects by applying the concepts of responsible rhetoric and emergent agency (Cooper, 2011), arguing that such rhetorically informed understandings are vital for maintaining digital projects in the humanities.

目前关于数字项目寿命问题的方法过于物质化，并且没有充分描述生存能力的重要因素，特别是对于那些人文学科。作者没有采用naïve的方法，而是通过考察六个数字人文学科项目生命周期中的关键时期：成长期、衰退期和停滞期，来阐述模棱两可、代表性和灵活性的主要话语问题。作者开发了一个框架，通过应用负责任的修辞和紧急机构的概念，更好地考虑数字项目的可扩展性、连续性和可持续性问题（Cooper, 2011），认为这种修辞上的理解对于维持人文学科的数字项目至关重要。

引用次数: 0

A posthumanist approach to AI literacy 人工智能识字的后人文主义方法

Q1 Arts and Humanities

Computers and Composition

Pub Date : 2025-04-09 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102933

Zhaozhe Wang , Chaoran Wang

How can posthumanism help us reframe AI-mediated literacy practices? And what implications does such reframing have for cultivating AI literacy in language and literacy education? This article explores these two imperative questions through a case study analyzing two multilingual undergraduate students’ meaning-making and meaning-negotiation intra-actions with AI technologies in a writing classroom. The case study reveals a productive tension between these students’ experiments with posthumanist literacy and their entrenched humanistic assumptions. Ultimately, through the case study, the authors hope to demonstrate that reframing and re-engaging with AI literacy through a posthumanist lens may offer students and educators a relational approach to developing and cultivating AI literacy.

后人文主义如何帮助我们重新构建人工智能介导的识字实践？这种重构对在语言和扫盲教育中培养人工智能素养有什么影响？本文通过对两名多语种本科生在写作课堂上使用人工智能技术进行意义制造和意义协商的案例分析，探讨了这两个迫切需要解决的问题。案例研究揭示了这些学生对后人文主义素养的实验与他们根深蒂固的人文主义假设之间产生的紧张关系。最终，通过案例研究，作者希望证明，通过后人文主义的视角重构和重新参与人工智能素养，可以为学生和教育工作者提供一种发展和培养人工智能素养的相关方法。

引用次数: 0

Rhetoric in action: A multimodal and rhetorical analysis of PETA and animal justice online advocacy 行动中的修辞：PETA和动物正义在线倡导的多模态和修辞分析

Q1 Arts and Humanities

Computers and Composition

Pub Date : 2025-03-20 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102924

Shyam Pandey

Activist groups, particularly PETA and Animal Justice, leverage multimodality in online advocacy to effectively communicate their organizational missions and updates across diverse communication platforms. This study uses a content analysis approach to examine the official websites of two prominent international animal rights organizations, PETA and Animal Justice, with the aim of understanding how they utilize multimodality to emotionally engage their audiences. The analysis of sample news reports, featured stories, photographs, and video materials collected from 50 web pages of these organizations’ official sites reveals three key findings: the use of multimodal combinations and synergetic blending, the application of rhetorical appeals, and an emphasis on a call to action. The subsequent discussion and conclusion highlight the significance of adopting a multimodal approach in the current technological landscape, illustrating how PETA and Animal Justice, as non-profit and non-academic entities, effectively convey their messages persuasively through online advocacy and multimodality. This study contributes to multimodal theory by demonstrating how the combination of visual, textual, and auditory elements enhances emotional engagement in digital advocacy—a domain that has received limited scholarly attention.

激进组织，特别是善待动物组织和动物正义组织，利用在线宣传的多模式，在不同的交流平台上有效地传达他们的组织使命和最新情况。本研究采用内容分析的方法来考察PETA和animal Justice这两个著名的国际动物权利组织的官方网站，目的是了解它们如何利用多模态来吸引受众的情感。从这些组织官方网站的50个网页中收集的样本新闻报道、专题故事、照片和视频材料的分析揭示了三个关键发现：使用多模态组合和协同混合，修辞诉求的应用，以及强调呼吁行动。随后的讨论和结论强调了在当前的技术环境中采用多模式方法的重要性，说明了善待动物组织和动物正义组织作为非营利和非学术实体如何通过在线倡导和多模式有效地传达他们的信息。本研究通过展示视觉、文本和听觉元素的结合如何增强数字宣传中的情感参与，为多模态理论做出了贡献——这是一个学术关注有限的领域。

{"title":"Rhetoric in action: A multimodal and rhetorical analysis of PETA and animal justice online advocacy","authors":"Shyam Pandey","doi":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102924","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102924","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Activist groups, particularly PETA and Animal Justice, leverage multimodality in online advocacy to effectively communicate their organizational missions and updates across diverse communication platforms. This study uses a content analysis approach to examine the official websites of two prominent international animal rights organizations, PETA and Animal Justice, with the aim of understanding how they utilize multimodality to emotionally engage their audiences. The analysis of sample news reports, featured stories, photographs, and video materials collected from 50 web pages of these organizations’ official sites reveals three key findings: the use of multimodal combinations and synergetic blending, the application of rhetorical appeals, and an emphasis on a call to action. The subsequent discussion and conclusion highlight the significance of adopting a multimodal approach in the current technological landscape, illustrating how PETA and Animal Justice, as non-profit and non-academic entities, effectively convey their messages persuasively through online advocacy and multimodality. This study contributes to multimodal theory by demonstrating how the combination of visual, textual, and auditory elements enhances emotional engagement in digital advocacy—a domain that has received limited scholarly attention.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":35773,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Composition","volume":"76 ","pages":"Article 102924"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143680938","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}

引用次数: 0

Coexisting with ChatGPT: Evaluating a tool for AI-based paper revision

Q1 Arts and Humanities

Computers and Composition

Pub Date : 2025-03-11 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102923

Matt Manierre, Lisa Propst, Alex Cohen, JoAnn Rogers

AI based tools such as ChatGPT have presented many challenges to educators since they entered the scene in 2022. We present our effort to coexist with ChatGPT in the classroom, developing an exercise for first year writing students to use ChatGPT while revising papers. The effectiveness of this activity was determined using pretest/posttest surveys (n = 64 and 53) and one- page reflective essays. Survey results indicated that students had largely positive appraisals of the different elements of the exercise, describing them as useful without reducing their appreciation of writing as an essential skill for the future. Yet, student writing self-efficacy also did not improve after working with ChatGPT. Qualitative responses were often positive but students frequently reported frustrations with ChatGPT rewriting work when told not to and providing only generic feedback. We offer our exercise as a means to engage students in critical thought about ChatGPT's uses, limitations, and implications for academic integrity. We suggest ways to iterate on this tool and to incorporate it in future work but emphasize that students must be taught to use AI tools with considerable skepticism.

{"title":"Coexisting with ChatGPT: Evaluating a tool for AI-based paper revision","authors":"Matt Manierre, Lisa Propst, Alex Cohen, JoAnn Rogers","doi":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102923","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102923","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>AI based tools such as ChatGPT have presented many challenges to educators since they entered the scene in 2022. We present our effort to coexist with ChatGPT in the classroom, developing an exercise for first year writing students to use ChatGPT while revising papers. The effectiveness of this activity was determined using pretest/posttest surveys (<em>n</em> = 64 and 53) and one- page reflective essays. Survey results indicated that students had largely positive appraisals of the different elements of the exercise, describing them as useful without reducing their appreciation of writing as an essential skill for the future. Yet, student writing self-efficacy also did not improve after working with ChatGPT. Qualitative responses were often positive but students frequently reported frustrations with ChatGPT rewriting work when told not to and providing only generic feedback. We offer our exercise as a means to engage students in critical thought about ChatGPT's uses, limitations, and implications for academic integrity. We suggest ways to iterate on this tool and to incorporate it in future work but emphasize that students must be taught to use AI tools with considerable skepticism.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":35773,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Composition","volume":"76 ","pages":"Article 102923"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143593427","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}

引用次数: 0

Objectivity bias in first-year research writing: The impact of perceived neutrality in an age of mistrust

Q1 Arts and Humanities

Computers and Composition

Pub Date : 2025-03-08 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102925

Elise Silva

In this paper, I explore first-year students' self-reported preferences for choosing source material in a digital, research-based writing setting. I argue that widespread skepticism towards online information has led to an "objectivity bias," where students prefer sources perceived as neutral and objective. Through qualitative interviews, I report that this bias may result in an overreliance on data-driven and empiricist sources, often at the expense of valuable personal narratives and experiential knowledge. I highlight the role of digital platforms and search algorithms in shaping these preferences and discuss the implications for teaching information literacy.

引用次数: 0

Drafting defensively, documenting authorship: An analysis of Draftback and Grammarly Authorship

Q1 Arts and Humanities

Computers and Composition

Pub Date : 2025-03-07 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102926

Maggie Fernandes, Megan McIntyre

In this piece, we offer critical interface analyses of two process surveillance interfaces, a term we use to describe personal writing tools that track students’ writing process via edits, revisions, and inserted text. Specifically, we examine: Draftback, a Google extension that predates ChatGPT-3, and Grammarly Authorship, a new beta feature for Grammarly users. Situated in scholarly conversations in digital cultural rhetorics, writing studies, surveillance studies, and user experience design, we analyze how these process surveillance interfaces reinscribe normative values for writing as product (rather than process) and facilitate feelings of suspicion, anxiety, and defensiveness for users. This analysis has implications both for instructors seeking to teach with tools like Draftback and Authorship to verify “responsible” GenAI use and instructors seeking to implement punitive anti-AI policies. Though Draftback and Grammarly Authorship are different kinds of process surveillance interfaces, they pose similar threats to writing process instruction when used for academic integrity purposes by either students or instructors. Namely, we find three issues associated with three process surveillance interfaces; namely, these tools promote 1) product over process; 2) normative constructions of embodiment and time; and 3) adversarial student-instructor dynamics.

{"title":"Drafting defensively, documenting authorship: An analysis of Draftback and Grammarly Authorship","authors":"Maggie Fernandes, Megan McIntyre","doi":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102926","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102926","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In this piece, we offer critical interface analyses of two process surveillance interfaces, a term we use to describe personal writing tools that track students’ writing process via edits, revisions, and inserted text. Specifically, we examine: Draftback, a Google extension that predates ChatGPT-3, and Grammarly Authorship, a new beta feature for Grammarly users. Situated in scholarly conversations in digital cultural rhetorics, writing studies, surveillance studies, and user experience design, we analyze how these process surveillance interfaces reinscribe normative values for writing as product (rather than process) and facilitate feelings of suspicion, anxiety, and defensiveness for users. This analysis has implications both for instructors seeking to teach with tools like Draftback and Authorship to verify “responsible” GenAI use <em>and</em> instructors seeking to implement punitive anti-AI policies. Though Draftback and Grammarly Authorship are different kinds of process surveillance interfaces, they pose similar threats to writing process instruction when used for academic integrity purposes by either students or instructors. Namely, we find three issues associated with three process surveillance interfaces; namely, these tools promote 1) product over process; 2) normative constructions of embodiment and time; and 3) adversarial student-instructor dynamics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":35773,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Composition","volume":"76 ","pages":"Article 102926"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143570575","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}

引用次数: 0

All the attention, all the time: How first-year students experience writing in a horizontal digital ecosystem

Q1 Arts and Humanities

Computers and Composition

Pub Date : 2025-03-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102922

Greg Hlavaty, Heather Lindenman, Travis Maynard

This article examines how first-year composition students navigate digital attention ecosystems while writing. It presents findings from a qualitative focus group study in which undergraduate students participated in writing and reflection activities. The findings indicate that students are immersed in a “horizontal attention ecosystem,” in which all online tasks, communications, and media feel equally worthy of their attention. Although students attempt to manage their physical-digital writing environments strategically, the intrusive nature of current technology hinders their ability to focus, especially on academic writing assignments. When completing academic assignments, students report relying on self-restrictive measures and approaching writing as a solitary act, contrasting with writing studies’ understanding of writing as a social act. This article suggests pedagogical approaches that privilege embodied writing strategies and encourage writing-oriented social interactions between students.

引用次数: 0

Editorial for special issue: Digital multimodal composing in the era of artificial intelligence 特刊社论：人工智能时代的数字多模态创作

Q1 Arts and Humanities

Computers and Composition

Pub Date : 2025-03-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102911

Fei Victor Lim , Øystein Gilje , Emilia Djonov

引用次数: 0

下一页尾页

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

Computers and Composition

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀