{"title":"Meeting report on the 16th EASE General Assembly and Conference","authors":"Jun-Beom Park","doi":"10.6087/kcse.283","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.283","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43997444","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}
In this brief paper, I will present Plan S and cOAlition S (https://www.coalition-s.org/). cOAlition S is a consortium of 27 organizations worldwide. It includes national funders in Europe— from Austria to the United Kingdom—but also the European Commission, as well as several charitable foundations from the United States and the United Kingdom, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust. cOAlition S also has a global dimension, with support from the World Health Organization, the Jordanian Higher Council for Science and Technology, the National Science and Technology Council from Zambia, and the South African Medical Research Council. Jointly, these research funding agencies invest about 40 billion dollars in research funds annually, with an output of about 150,000 published articles a year based on that research support. I would like to explain the goals of Plan S, its implementation process, the routes to compliance to open access (OA), and some of our tools, services, and projects.
{"title":"Plan S: estimating future developments","authors":"J. Rooryck","doi":"10.6087/kcse.281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.281","url":null,"abstract":"In this brief paper, I will present Plan S and cOAlition S (https://www.coalition-s.org/). cOAlition S is a consortium of 27 organizations worldwide. It includes national funders in Europe— from Austria to the United Kingdom—but also the European Commission, as well as several charitable foundations from the United States and the United Kingdom, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust. cOAlition S also has a global dimension, with support from the World Health Organization, the Jordanian Higher Council for Science and Technology, the National Science and Technology Council from Zambia, and the South African Medical Research Council. Jointly, these research funding agencies invest about 40 billion dollars in research funds annually, with an output of about 150,000 published articles a year based on that research support. I would like to explain the goals of Plan S, its implementation process, the routes to compliance to open access (OA), and some of our tools, services, and projects.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44896980","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: Clinical reasoning is an essential component of nursing education. This study aimed to identify the trends in research on clinical reasoning in nursing over a 22-year period.Methods: The Web of Science Core Collection was used as the target database, with the search terms “clinical reasoning,” “clinical judgement,” and “clinical decision.” The scope of the search included the subject, abstract, author’s keywords, and Keywords Plus for each article. Our literature search included journal articles from 2000 to 2021, with the subject area restricted to nursing. A total of 4,675 articles met the inclusion criteria after the removal of duplicates using digital object identifier. We used bibliometric analyses to conduct quantitative and statistical analyses of publication trends, the journals and countries with the most publications, the most productive authors, the most globally cited documents, and the most frequent keywords.Results: In nursing, studies related to clinical reasoning have increased significantly since 2000. The most prolific country has been the United States. The journal with the most publications was the Journal of Clinical Nursing. The most productive author was Considine J, with 23 publications. The most widely cited author was Tanner CA, with 614 citations. The most frequent keywords in the literature related to clinical reasoning were “care,” “nurses,” and “decision-making,” in that order.Conclusion: This study examined the quantitative analysis and statistics of publications related to clinical reasoning in nursing in the past 20 years using bibliographic information. This study can help guide future research on clinical reasoning for nurse educators.
目的:临床推理是护理教育的重要组成部分。本研究旨在确定临床推理研究在护理22年期间的趋势。方法:以Web of Science核心合集为目标数据库，检索词为“临床推理”、“临床判断”和“临床决策”。搜索的范围包括每篇文章的主题、摘要、作者关键字和关键字加。我们的文献检索包括2000年至2021年的期刊文章，主题领域仅限于护理。在使用数字对象标识符删除重复条目后，共有4,675篇文章符合纳入标准。我们使用文献计量学分析对出版趋势、发表最多的期刊和国家、最高产的作者、全球引用最多的文献和最常见的关键词进行了定量和统计分析。结果:在护理学中，临床推理相关的研究自2000年以来显著增加。最多产的国家是美国。发表最多的期刊是《临床护理杂志》。最多产的作者是Considine J，发表了23篇文章。被引用最多的作者是Tanner CA，被引用614次。与临床推理相关的文献中最常见的关键词依次是“护理”、“护士”和“决策”。结论:本研究利用文献资料对近20年来护理学临床推理相关文献进行了定量分析和统计。本研究对护理教育工作者临床推理的研究具有指导意义。
{"title":"Trends in research on clinical reasoning in nursing over the past 20 years: a bibliometric analysis","authors":"S. Hahn, Y. Ryu","doi":"10.6087/kcse.276","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.276","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Clinical reasoning is an essential component of nursing education. This study aimed to identify the trends in research on clinical reasoning in nursing over a 22-year period.Methods: The Web of Science Core Collection was used as the target database, with the search terms “clinical reasoning,” “clinical judgement,” and “clinical decision.” The scope of the search included the subject, abstract, author’s keywords, and Keywords Plus for each article. Our literature search included journal articles from 2000 to 2021, with the subject area restricted to nursing. A total of 4,675 articles met the inclusion criteria after the removal of duplicates using digital object identifier. We used bibliometric analyses to conduct quantitative and statistical analyses of publication trends, the journals and countries with the most publications, the most productive authors, the most globally cited documents, and the most frequent keywords.Results: In nursing, studies related to clinical reasoning have increased significantly since 2000. The most prolific country has been the United States. The journal with the most publications was the Journal of Clinical Nursing. The most productive author was Considine J, with 23 publications. The most widely cited author was Tanner CA, with 614 citations. The most frequent keywords in the literature related to clinical reasoning were “care,” “nurses,” and “decision-making,” in that order.Conclusion: This study examined the quantitative analysis and statistics of publications related to clinical reasoning in nursing in the past 20 years using bibliographic information. This study can help guide future research on clinical reasoning for nurse educators.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47610147","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 current status and factors associated with adopting data sharing policies in Asian journals. Data sharing policies vary by country and region, and few studies have examined the trends and factors related to these policies in journals across the Asian region.Methods: The 2020 Scimago Journal and Country Rank was used to download data about 1,143 Asian journals indexed in Web of Science. Excluding 40 journals inaccessible via the Internet or without English-language websites and author guidelines, 1,103 journals were analyzed through descriptive statistical analyses and the chi-square test.Results: Of the 1,103 journals, 325 (29.5%) had data sharing policies, showing a moderate level of policy adoption among Asian journals. The results of the chi-square test suggested that the impact factor and publisher type (whether a publisher was commercial) were significantly associated with the presence of data sharing policies in journals, but subject categories were not identified as a significant factor. Regarding the strength of data sharing policies, most journals provided policies that only encouraged data sharing.Conclusion: Policies only encouraging data sharing are unlikely to lead to actual data sharing; thus, considering varying levels of policy strength and effective ways to induce authors’ compliance with the policies is important. Further research needs to examine other factors affecting the presence or strength of data sharing policies.
目的:本研究调查了亚洲期刊采用数据共享政策的现状及相关因素。数据共享政策因国家和地区而异，很少有研究考察亚洲地区期刊中与这些政策相关的趋势和因素。方法:采用2020年sciago Journal and Country Rank数据库下载Web of Science收录的1143种亚洲期刊数据。排除40种无法通过互联网或没有英文网站和作者指南的期刊，通过描述性统计分析和卡方检验对1103种期刊进行了分析。结果:在1103种期刊中，325种(29.5%)有数据共享政策，表明亚洲期刊采用了中等水平的政策。卡方检验的结果表明，影响因子和出版商类型(是否为商业出版商)与期刊中数据共享政策的存在显著相关，但主题类别未被确定为显著因素。关于数据共享政策的力度，大多数期刊只提供鼓励数据共享的政策。结论:仅鼓励数据共享的政策不太可能导致实际的数据共享;因此，考虑不同程度的政策强度和有效的方法来诱导作者遵守政策是很重要的。进一步的研究需要检查影响数据共享政策存在或力度的其他因素。
{"title":"Status and factors associated with the adoption of data sharing policies in Asian journals","authors":"Jihyun Kim, Seo Young Bai","doi":"10.6087/kcse.274","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.274","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study investigated the current status and factors associated with adopting data sharing policies in Asian journals. Data sharing policies vary by country and region, and few studies have examined the trends and factors related to these policies in journals across the Asian region.Methods: The 2020 Scimago Journal and Country Rank was used to download data about 1,143 Asian journals indexed in Web of Science. Excluding 40 journals inaccessible via the Internet or without English-language websites and author guidelines, 1,103 journals were analyzed through descriptive statistical analyses and the chi-square test.Results: Of the 1,103 journals, 325 (29.5%) had data sharing policies, showing a moderate level of policy adoption among Asian journals. The results of the chi-square test suggested that the impact factor and publisher type (whether a publisher was commercial) were significantly associated with the presence of data sharing policies in journals, but subject categories were not identified as a significant factor. Regarding the strength of data sharing policies, most journals provided policies that only encouraged data sharing.Conclusion: Policies only encouraging data sharing are unlikely to lead to actual data sharing; thus, considering varying levels of policy strength and effective ways to induce authors’ compliance with the policies is important. Further research needs to examine other factors affecting the presence or strength of data sharing policies.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47722844","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":"Thoughts on the long-term digital preservation of scholarly journals","authors":"Kihong Kim","doi":"10.6087/kcse.273","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.273","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44483094","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":"Why consistent, clear, and uniform instructions for authors are required","authors":"J. Iwaz","doi":"10.6087/kcse.279","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.279","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48136441","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: Although English has become the lingua franca for scholarly communication, scholars worldwide publish in other languages. Nevertheless, few studies have answered the question, “To what extent do scholars publish in non-English languages?” This study addresses that question, limiting its scope to Vietnamese scholars.Methods: We reviewed 833 non-English documents authored by at least one scholar from Vietnam between 1960 and 2021, exploring aspects such as the language of the publication, the year of publication, the document type, number of document citations, the most prolific and most cited authors, and the primary research themes.Results: Among non-English languages, French, Russian, and Chinese were the three most often selected by Vietnamese scholars for their publications. The year 2015 was a pivotal year when non-English publications from Vietnam significantly increased. Journal articles were the most common type of document, and the most frequent subject areas were medicine, agricultural and biological sciences, engineering, energy, and environmental science.Conclusion: Although English is the primary language of science, the number of non-English documents by Vietnamese researchers has been increasing. This suggests that collaborative work between Vietnamese researchers and foreign researchers has also increased.
{"title":"Science beyond English: to what extent do Vietnamese scholars publish in non-English languages?","authors":"Van Luong Nguyen, D. Luong, Hiep-Hung Pham","doi":"10.6087/kcse.275","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.275","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Although English has become the lingua franca for scholarly communication, scholars worldwide publish in other languages. Nevertheless, few studies have answered the question, “To what extent do scholars publish in non-English languages?” This study addresses that question, limiting its scope to Vietnamese scholars.Methods: We reviewed 833 non-English documents authored by at least one scholar from Vietnam between 1960 and 2021, exploring aspects such as the language of the publication, the year of publication, the document type, number of document citations, the most prolific and most cited authors, and the primary research themes.Results: Among non-English languages, French, Russian, and Chinese were the three most often selected by Vietnamese scholars for their publications. The year 2015 was a pivotal year when non-English publications from Vietnam significantly increased. Journal articles were the most common type of document, and the most frequent subject areas were medicine, agricultural and biological sciences, engineering, energy, and environmental science.Conclusion: Although English is the primary language of science, the number of non-English documents by Vietnamese researchers has been increasing. This suggests that collaborative work between Vietnamese researchers and foreign researchers has also increased.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44674685","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}
A protocol is defined as “the detailed plan of the study.” Every research study should have a protocol, and the protocol should be written explicitly [1]. The increasing emphasis on transparency in research has been accompanied by a growing recognition of the importance of research protocols. Furthermore, it is well known that various biases, including publication bias and selective outcome reporting bias, can be reduced through protocol registration. In recent years, there has been a shift from registering research protocols to publishing them. This article describes the reasons for publishing research protocols and the foreseeable impacts of this trend.
{"title":"Why do journals publish research protocols?","authors":"S. Kim","doi":"10.6087/kcse.280","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.280","url":null,"abstract":"A protocol is defined as “the detailed plan of the study.” Every research study should have a protocol, and the protocol should be written explicitly [1]. The increasing emphasis on transparency in research has been accompanied by a growing recognition of the importance of research protocols. Furthermore, it is well known that various biases, including publication bias and selective outcome reporting bias, can be reduced through protocol registration. In recent years, there has been a shift from registering research protocols to publishing them. This article describes the reasons for publishing research protocols and the foreseeable impacts of this trend.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48568496","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 examined whether popular science journalism can be a distraction from war news, as the life of all citizens in Ukraine has changed significantly since the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.Methods: This article presents an audience survey on whether they viewed science content as a distraction from war news. In addition, an analysis of 10 Ukrainian YouTube channels was conducted. All videos that were published after February 24, 2022, the start date of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, were processed.Results: Out of 460 audience members of TV programs and YouTube channels, 64.8% of respondents considered watching popular science or entertainment programs as a distraction from the war. An analysis of the content of popular science YouTube channels during the first 2 months of the war showed that every active channel was reformatted according to the realities of wartime. In addition, the audience survey demonstrated that even during the war, this type of content has remained relevant.Conclusion: The Ukrainian audience needed scientific content as a distraction from the war. The majority of respondents, regardless of gender, needed to divert their attention from military operations. Ukrainian science journalists also joined the information war against the foreign invasion.
{"title":"Ukrainian scientific TV programs and YouTube channels as a distraction from war news on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: a survey-based observational study and a content analysis","authors":"Roksolana Kravchenko","doi":"10.6087/kcse.278","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.278","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study examined whether popular science journalism can be a distraction from war news, as the life of all citizens in Ukraine has changed significantly since the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.Methods: This article presents an audience survey on whether they viewed science content as a distraction from war news. In addition, an analysis of 10 Ukrainian YouTube channels was conducted. All videos that were published after February 24, 2022, the start date of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, were processed.Results: Out of 460 audience members of TV programs and YouTube channels, 64.8% of respondents considered watching popular science or entertainment programs as a distraction from the war. An analysis of the content of popular science YouTube channels during the first 2 months of the war showed that every active channel was reformatted according to the realities of wartime. In addition, the audience survey demonstrated that even during the war, this type of content has remained relevant.Conclusion: The Ukrainian audience needed scientific content as a distraction from the war. The majority of respondents, regardless of gender, needed to divert their attention from military operations. Ukrainian science journalists also joined the information war against the foreign invasion.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49157729","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 article presents the growth and development of preprints to help authors, editors, and publishers understand and adopt appropriate strategies for incorporating preprints within their scholarly communication strategies. The article considers: preprint history and evolution, integration of preprints and journals, and the benefits and disadvantages, and challenges that preprints offer. The article discusses the two largest and most established preprint servers, arXiv.org (established in 1991) and SSRN (1994), the OSF (Open Science Foundation) initiative that supported preprint growth (2010), bioRxiv (2013), and medRxiv (2019). It then discusses six different levels of acceptance of preprints within journals: uneasy relationship, acceptance of preprint articles, encouraging authors to preprint their articles, active participation with preprints, submerger by reviewing preprints, and finally merger and overlay models. It is notable that most journals now accept submissions that have been posted as preprints. The benefits of preprints include fast circulation, priority publication, increased visibility, community feedback, and contribution to open science. Disadvantages include information overload, inadequate quality assurance, citation dilution, information manipulation and inflation of results. As preprints become mainstream it is likely that they will benefit authors but disadvantage publishers and journals. Authors are encouraged to preprint their own articles but to be cautious about using preprints as the basis for their own research. Editors are encouraged to develop preprint policies and be aware that double-blind review is not possible with preprinting of articles and that allowing citations to preprints is to be encouraged. In conclusion, journal-related stakeholders should consider preprints as an unavoidable development, taking into consideration both the benefits and disadvantages.
{"title":"The evolution, benefits, and challenges of preprints and their interaction with journals","authors":"P. Smart","doi":"10.6087/kcse.269","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.269","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents the growth and development of preprints to help authors, editors, and publishers understand and adopt appropriate strategies for incorporating preprints within their scholarly communication strategies. The article considers: preprint history and evolution, integration of preprints and journals, and the benefits and disadvantages, and challenges that preprints offer. The article discusses the two largest and most established preprint servers, arXiv.org (established in 1991) and SSRN (1994), the OSF (Open Science Foundation) initiative that supported preprint growth (2010), bioRxiv (2013), and medRxiv (2019). It then discusses six different levels of acceptance of preprints within journals: uneasy relationship, acceptance of preprint articles, encouraging authors to preprint their articles, active participation with preprints, submerger by reviewing preprints, and finally merger and overlay models. It is notable that most journals now accept submissions that have been posted as preprints. The benefits of preprints include fast circulation, priority publication, increased visibility, community feedback, and contribution to open science. Disadvantages include information overload, inadequate quality assurance, citation dilution, information manipulation and inflation of results. As preprints become mainstream it is likely that they will benefit authors but disadvantage publishers and journals. Authors are encouraged to preprint their own articles but to be cautious about using preprints as the basis for their own research. Editors are encouraged to develop preprint policies and be aware that double-blind review is not possible with preprinting of articles and that allowing citations to preprints is to be encouraged. In conclusion, journal-related stakeholders should consider preprints as an unavoidable development, taking into consideration both the benefits and disadvantages.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42906266","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：