Purpose: This study investigated editors’ and researcher’s experiences with preprints and their attitudes towards preprint policies in Korea. Methods: From December 30, 2019 to January 10, 2020, a Google Forms survey was mailed to members of the Korean Council of Science Editors and the Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies. The 16 survey items included two demographic items, six items on experience with preprints, five 5-point Likert-scale items on attitudes towards preprints, and three items on advantages and disadvantages. Results: Out of 365 respondents, 56 had deposited their manuscripts on preprint servers, while 49 stated that they allowed preprints in their journals. More than half of the respondents expressed favorable attitudes towards prioritizing preprint deposition, promotion of open access, rapid feedback on preprints, earlier citations, and evidence of research work. Responders in engineering had more experience with the concept of preprints, and were more likely to have heard about preprint servers and preprint deposition by other researchers, than those in medicine. Half of the editors disagreed with the need for preprints, for reasons including a lack of scientific integrity, stealing ideas/scooping data, priority issues regarding research ideas, and copyright problems. Conclusion: The above results showed that preprints are still not actively used in Korea. Although experiences with preprints were not widespread, more than half of the respondents showed favorable attitudes towards preprints. More of a consensus should emerge for preprint policies to be accepted by editors in Korea.
{"title":"Korean editors’ and researchers’ experiences with preprints and attitudes towards preprint policies","authors":"H. Yi, Sun Huh","doi":"10.6087/KCSE.223","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/KCSE.223","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study investigated editors’ and researcher’s experiences with preprints and their attitudes towards preprint policies in Korea. Methods: From December 30, 2019 to January 10, 2020, a Google Forms survey was mailed to members of the Korean Council of Science Editors and the Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies. The 16 survey items included two demographic items, six items on experience with preprints, five 5-point Likert-scale items on attitudes towards preprints, and three items on advantages and disadvantages. Results: Out of 365 respondents, 56 had deposited their manuscripts on preprint servers, while 49 stated that they allowed preprints in their journals. More than half of the respondents expressed favorable attitudes towards prioritizing preprint deposition, promotion of open access, rapid feedback on preprints, earlier citations, and evidence of research work. Responders in engineering had more experience with the concept of preprints, and were more likely to have heard about preprint servers and preprint deposition by other researchers, than those in medicine. Half of the editors disagreed with the need for preprints, for reasons including a lack of scientific integrity, stealing ideas/scooping data, priority issues regarding research ideas, and copyright problems. Conclusion: The above results showed that preprints are still not actively used in Korea. Although experiences with preprints were not widespread, more than half of the respondents showed favorable attitudes towards preprints. More of a consensus should emerge for preprint policies to be accepted by editors in Korea.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":"8 1","pages":"4-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44251681","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}
Purpose: There is somewhat of a difference between understanding the open access (OA) concept and practicing it by stakeholders. OA articles are mainly published by gold and hybrid OA journals, but the OA status may be confusing depending on the target databases. This study investigated the OA status of journals and articles and evaluated the extent to which OA2020 (publishing 90% of articles as OA) was achieved. Methods: This study collected OA data by combining 2014-2019 data from Journal Citation Reports at the journal level with Web of Science at the article level. Finally, 12,449 journals were analyzed focusing on gold and hybrid OA journals, and progress towards the goal of OA2020 was evaluated. Results: Even though 80.4% of Journal Citation Reports journals were gold and hybrid OA journals, only 20.9% of the articles were OA (gold OA journals, 16.6%; hybrid journals, 4.3%). The compound annual growth rate of the total articles was 4.7%, that of OA articles was 16.4%, and that of subscription articles was only 1.7%. Among the subscription journals, 77.4% had shifted to become hybrid journals, but only 5.2% of their articles were OA. Therefore, the hybrid journals were at the very early stage of OA publishing. Conclusion: Considerable progress must still be made to achieve the goal of OA2020. The influence of OA publishing will eventually expand and therefore, librarians should take interest in OA publishing for the library services.
{"title":"Open access status of journals and articles in Journal Citation Reports","authors":"Sang-Jun Kim, K. Park","doi":"10.6087/KCSE.226","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/KCSE.226","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: There is somewhat of a difference between understanding the open access (OA) concept and practicing it by stakeholders. OA articles are mainly published by gold and hybrid OA journals, but the OA status may be confusing depending on the target databases. This study investigated the OA status of journals and articles and evaluated the extent to which OA2020 (publishing 90% of articles as OA) was achieved. Methods: This study collected OA data by combining 2014-2019 data from Journal Citation Reports at the journal level with Web of Science at the article level. Finally, 12,449 journals were analyzed focusing on gold and hybrid OA journals, and progress towards the goal of OA2020 was evaluated. Results: Even though 80.4% of Journal Citation Reports journals were gold and hybrid OA journals, only 20.9% of the articles were OA (gold OA journals, 16.6%; hybrid journals, 4.3%). The compound annual growth rate of the total articles was 4.7%, that of OA articles was 16.4%, and that of subscription articles was only 1.7%. Among the subscription journals, 77.4% had shifted to become hybrid journals, but only 5.2% of their articles were OA. Therefore, the hybrid journals were at the very early stage of OA publishing. Conclusion: Considerable progress must still be made to achieve the goal of OA2020. The influence of OA publishing will eventually expand and therefore, librarians should take interest in OA publishing for the library services.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":"8 1","pages":"26-31"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46466576","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}
{"title":"Restriction of some datasets from open access repositories","authors":"","doi":"10.6087/kcse.243","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.243","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46271153","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}
{"title":"Presidential address: the Korean Council of Science Editors as a board member of Crossref from March 2021 to February 2024","authors":"Sun Huh","doi":"10.6087/KCSE.222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/KCSE.222","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":"8 1","pages":"1-3"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48366503","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}
Purpose: The number of open access (OA) journals is rapidly increasing, and it is very important for librarians to understand the influence of OA journals on the research community. This study investigated the influence of the OA journals listed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) based on various indicators. Methods: The data for this study were prepared by combining the JCR 2014 to 2019 journal list with the number of hybrid OA articles obtained by searching the Web of Science. Each journal’s JCR indicators and article processing charge were added. The influence of OA journals was compared according to OA type, whether they were published by large publishers, and whether they were top gold OA journals. Results: Gold OA journals remained weaker in terms of JCR indicators than hybrid journals. However, the top 20 gold OA journals, accounting for 27.0% of all OA articles in JCR 2014 to 2019, were superior in all JCR indicators. The top three OA publishers (MDPI, BioMed Central, and Public Library of Science) showed potential for development despite concerns regarding poor journals. The top three subscription publishers were very active in OA publishing, but their actual share of hybrid OA articles (Elsevier, 5.1%; Springer, 10.1%; and Wiley, 12.4% in JCR 2019) was still insufficient. Conclusion: Some gold OA journals showed high competitiveness and even the possibility for development beyond traditional journals. The transition of subscription journals to hybrid journals was found to be at the early stage. In light of these findings, librarians should continue monitoring the influence of OA journals.
{"title":"Influence of open access journals on the research community in Journal Citation Reports","authors":"Sang-Jun Kim, K. Park","doi":"10.6087/KCSE.227","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/KCSE.227","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The number of open access (OA) journals is rapidly increasing, and it is very important for librarians to understand the influence of OA journals on the research community. This study investigated the influence of the OA journals listed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) based on various indicators. Methods: The data for this study were prepared by combining the JCR 2014 to 2019 journal list with the number of hybrid OA articles obtained by searching the Web of Science. Each journal’s JCR indicators and article processing charge were added. The influence of OA journals was compared according to OA type, whether they were published by large publishers, and whether they were top gold OA journals. Results: Gold OA journals remained weaker in terms of JCR indicators than hybrid journals. However, the top 20 gold OA journals, accounting for 27.0% of all OA articles in JCR 2014 to 2019, were superior in all JCR indicators. The top three OA publishers (MDPI, BioMed Central, and Public Library of Science) showed potential for development despite concerns regarding poor journals. The top three subscription publishers were very active in OA publishing, but their actual share of hybrid OA articles (Elsevier, 5.1%; Springer, 10.1%; and Wiley, 12.4% in JCR 2019) was still insufficient. Conclusion: Some gold OA journals showed high competitiveness and even the possibility for development beyond traditional journals. The transition of subscription journals to hybrid journals was found to be at the early stage. In light of these findings, librarians should continue monitoring the influence of OA journals.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":"8 1","pages":"32-38"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42300376","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}
Research and publication misconduct may occur in various forms, including author misrepresentation, plagiarism, and data fabrication. Research and publication ethics are essentially not legal duties, but ethical obligations. In reality, however, legal disputes arise over whether research and publication ethics have been violated. Thus, in many cases, misconduct in research and publication is determined in the courts. This article presents noteworthy legal cases in Korea regarding research and publication ethics to help editors and authors prevent ethical misconduct. Legal cases from 2009 to 2020 were collected from the database of the Supreme Court of Korea in December 2020. These court cases represent three case types: 1) civil cases, such as affirmation of nullity of dismissal and damages; 2) criminal cases, such as fraud, interference with business, and violations of copyright law; and 3) administrative cases related to disciplinary measures against professors affiliated with a university. These cases show that although research and publication ethics are ethical norms that are autonomously established by the relevant academic societies, they become a criterion for case resolution in legal disputes where research and publication misconduct is at issue.
{"title":"Korean court cases regarding research and publication ethics from 2009 to 2020","authors":"J. Y. Lee","doi":"10.6087/KCSE.236","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/KCSE.236","url":null,"abstract":"Research and publication misconduct may occur in various forms, including author misrepresentation, plagiarism, and data fabrication. Research and publication ethics are essentially not legal duties, but ethical obligations. In reality, however, legal disputes arise over whether research and publication ethics have been violated. Thus, in many cases, misconduct in research and publication is determined in the courts. This article presents noteworthy legal cases in Korea regarding research and publication ethics to help editors and authors prevent ethical misconduct. Legal cases from 2009 to 2020 were collected from the database of the Supreme Court of Korea in December 2020. These court cases represent three case types: 1) civil cases, such as affirmation of nullity of dismissal and damages; 2) criminal cases, such as fraud, interference with business, and violations of copyright law; and 3) administrative cases related to disciplinary measures against professors affiliated with a university. These cases show that although research and publication ethics are ethical norms that are autonomously established by the relevant academic societies, they become a criterion for case resolution in legal disputes where research and publication misconduct is at issue.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":"8 1","pages":"98-103"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42160796","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}
This study investigated whether there was an increase in submissions to scholarly journals in Korea according to journals' field and indexation status in Scopus or Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) in 2020, the year when the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic first spread throughout the world The analysis included 60 journals with e-submission systems operated by M2PI Yearly and monthly submissions were counted from 2016 to 2020 The yearly proportional change was also calculated In 2020, submissions soared for medical journals indexed in Scopus/SCIE (49 5%), corresponding to an increase of 36 9% relative to the expected number of submissions There was also a surge of submissions to these journals from March to July 2020 However, non-medical journals and medical journals not indexed in Scopus/SCIE did not show an increase in submissions The number of submissions to scholarly journals in Korea was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in a specific subset of journals The background of the spike in submissions is required to be re-investigated Editors' burden also should be mitigated through editorial board members' help and publishers' support
本研究根据2020年Scopus或ScienceCitation Index Expanded（SCIE）中期刊的领域和索引状况，调查了韩国学术期刊的投稿量是否有所增加，2019冠状病毒病（新冠肺炎）大流行首次在全球传播的年份分析包括60种由M2PI运营的电子提交系统期刊2016年至2020年的年度和月度提交量。还计算了年度比例变化。2020年，Scopus/SCIE索引的医学期刊提交量飙升（49.5%），与预期提交数量相比，增加了369%。2020年3月至7月，这些期刊的提交数量也激增。然而，Scopus/SCIE中未编入索引的非医学期刊和医学期刊的投稿量没有增加。韩国学术期刊的投稿数量受到新冠肺炎疫情的影响。投稿量激增的背景需要重新调查。编辑的负担也应通过编委会成员的帮助和出版商的支持
{"title":"Was the number of submissions to scholarly journals in Korea affected by the COVID-19 pandemic?","authors":"Sun Huh","doi":"10.6087/KCSE.239","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/KCSE.239","url":null,"abstract":"This study investigated whether there was an increase in submissions to scholarly journals in Korea according to journals' field and indexation status in Scopus or Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) in 2020, the year when the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic first spread throughout the world The analysis included 60 journals with e-submission systems operated by M2PI Yearly and monthly submissions were counted from 2016 to 2020 The yearly proportional change was also calculated In 2020, submissions soared for medical journals indexed in Scopus/SCIE (49 5%), corresponding to an increase of 36 9% relative to the expected number of submissions There was also a surge of submissions to these journals from March to July 2020 However, non-medical journals and medical journals not indexed in Scopus/SCIE did not show an increase in submissions The number of submissions to scholarly journals in Korea was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in a specific subset of journals The background of the spike in submissions is required to be re-investigated Editors' burden also should be mitigated through editorial board members' help and publishers' support","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":"8 1","pages":"117-122"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44372751","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}
Purpose: This study investigated the usefulness and limitations of data journals by analyzing motivations for submission, review and publication processes according to researchers with experience publishing in data journals.Methods: Among 79 data journals indexed in Web of Science, we selected four data journals where data papers accounted for more than 20% of the publication volume and whose corresponding authors belonged to South Korean research institutes. A qualitative analysis was conducted of the subjective experiences of seven corresponding authors who agreed to participate in interviews. To analyze interview transcriptions, clusters were created by restructuring the theme nodes using Nvivo 12.Results: The most important element of data journals to researchers was their usefulness for obtaining credit for research performance. Since the data in repositories linked to data papers are screened using journals’ review processes, the validity, accuracy, reusability, and reliability of data are ensured. In addition, data journals provide a basis for data sharing using repositories and data-centered follow-up research using citations and offer detailed descriptions of data.Conclusion: Data journals play a leading role in data-centered research. Data papers are recognized as research achievements through citations in the same way as research papers published in conventional journals, but there was also a perception that it is difficult to attain a similar level of academic recognition with data papers as with research papers. However, researchers highly valued the usefulness of data journals, and data journals should thus be developed into new academic communication channels that enhance data sharing and reuse.
目的:本研究通过分析具有数据期刊发表经验的研究人员的投稿动机、评审动机和发表动机，探讨了数据期刊的有用性和局限性。方法:在Web of Science收录的79种数据期刊中，选取数据论文占发表量20%以上、通讯作者为韩国科研机构的4种数据期刊。对同意参加访谈的7位通讯作者的主观经历进行了定性分析。为了分析访谈转录，使用Nvivo 12重组主题节点创建聚类。结果:对研究人员来说，数据期刊最重要的元素是它们对获得研究绩效信用的有用性。由于与数据论文相关的存储库中的数据是使用期刊的审查流程进行筛选的，因此确保了数据的有效性、准确性、可重用性和可靠性。此外，数据期刊为使用存储库的数据共享和使用引用的以数据为中心的后续研究提供了基础，并提供了数据的详细描述。结论:数据期刊在以数据为中心的研究中起主导作用。数据论文与发表在传统期刊上的研究论文一样，通过引用被视为研究成果，但也有一种看法认为，数据论文很难获得与研究论文相似的学术认可水平。然而，研究人员高度重视数据期刊的有用性，因此，数据期刊应该发展成为促进数据共享和重用的新的学术交流渠道。
{"title":"Korean researchers’ motivations for publishing in data journals and the usefulness of their data: a qualitative study","authors":"Jungyeoun Lee, Jihyun Kim","doi":"10.6087/kcse.246","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.246","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study investigated the usefulness and limitations of data journals by analyzing motivations for submission, review and publication processes according to researchers with experience publishing in data journals.Methods: Among 79 data journals indexed in Web of Science, we selected four data journals where data papers accounted for more than 20% of the publication volume and whose corresponding authors belonged to South Korean research institutes. A qualitative analysis was conducted of the subjective experiences of seven corresponding authors who agreed to participate in interviews. To analyze interview transcriptions, clusters were created by restructuring the theme nodes using Nvivo 12.Results: The most important element of data journals to researchers was their usefulness for obtaining credit for research performance. Since the data in repositories linked to data papers are screened using journals’ review processes, the validity, accuracy, reusability, and reliability of data are ensured. In addition, data journals provide a basis for data sharing using repositories and data-centered follow-up research using citations and offer detailed descriptions of data.Conclusion: Data journals play a leading role in data-centered research. Data papers are recognized as research achievements through citations in the same way as research papers published in conventional journals, but there was also a perception that it is difficult to attain a similar level of academic recognition with data papers as with research papers. However, researchers highly valued the usefulness of data journals, and data journals should thus be developed into new academic communication channels that enhance data sharing and reuse.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71226412","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}
Purpose: The 20th anniversary of Crossref is a good point to evaluate where Crossref stands with the communities it supports so that it can be in a position to serve their needs in the future. Methods: This evaluation took the form of a survey and a series of interviews run by Shift Learning in mid-2019. Results: Results are presented in the form of a report authored by Shift Learning which is discussed in this paper. Conclusion: Overall, Crossref is appreciated and provides value for the scholarly community. However, it needs to make sure that it continues to serve key stakeholders, ensure that core systems work smoothly for all members and that they balance the needs of its different sizes of members and those who subscribe to or use the Crossref metadata. The report from Shift Learning makes specific recommendations regarding pricing, products and services and, communications which Crossref should consider to continue to address the needs of its diverse stakeholders
{"title":"Crossref at 20 years: what do the community need?","authors":"Rachael Lammey","doi":"10.6087/kcse.206","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.206","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The 20th anniversary of Crossref is a good point to evaluate where Crossref stands with the communities it supports so that it can be in a position to serve their needs in the future. Methods: This evaluation took the form of a survey and a series of interviews run by Shift Learning in mid-2019. Results: Results are presented in the form of a report authored by Shift Learning which is discussed in this paper. Conclusion: Overall, Crossref is appreciated and provides value for the scholarly community. However, it needs to make sure that it continues to serve key stakeholders, ensure that core systems work smoothly for all members and that they balance the needs of its different sizes of members and those who subscribe to or use the Crossref metadata. The report from Shift Learning makes specific recommendations regarding pricing, products and services and, communications which Crossref should consider to continue to address the needs of its diverse stakeholders","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":"7 1","pages":"125-129"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2020-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42274643","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：