{"title":"Becoming the Writer You Already Are by Michelle R. Boyd; Becoming a Scholarly Journal Editor: Practical Advice for Editors and Tips for Authors by Wayne Journell","authors":"Steven E. Gump","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2023-0017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2023-0017","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77030236","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Rising stars are the researchers who are relatively new to the research area and have published fewer research articles, but their research work is of such standard that they have the potential to be top researchers in near future. Research work on the evaluation of researchers and prediction of rising stars is getting attention because it can be useful for selecting capable candidates for the jobs, hiring young faculty members for institutes, and seeking reviewers for journals and conferences and members for different committees. In this research study, the authors address the research problem of finding rising stars and propose novel features in diverse feature sets of three categories: article, author, and venue. The real-world data set has been extracted, preprocessed, and used from the Web of Science for empirical analysis. Several diverse supervised machine learning, ensemble learning algorithms, and deep learning are applied to the data set. The results, using classifiers, are compared based on standard performance evaluation measures to reveal the significance of the proposed as well as existing features. It also shows that the novel features play a significant role in finding rising stars. The ensemble- based machine learning classifier generalized linear model outperforms all other classifiers and gives the highest accuracy and F-measure compared to other models and the existing studies in the relevant literature.
{"title":"Exploring Author, Article, and Venue Feature Sets for Rising Star Prediction in Academic Network","authors":"Amber Urooj, H. Khan, Saqib Iqbal, M. Alghobiri","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0025","url":null,"abstract":"Rising stars are the researchers who are relatively new to the research area and have published fewer research articles, but their research work is of such standard that they have the potential to be top researchers in near future. Research work on the evaluation of researchers and prediction of rising stars is getting attention because it can be useful for selecting capable candidates for the jobs, hiring young faculty members for institutes, and seeking reviewers for journals and conferences and members for different committees. In this research study, the authors address the research problem of finding rising stars and propose novel features in diverse feature sets of three categories: article, author, and venue. The real-world data set has been extracted, preprocessed, and used from the Web of Science for empirical analysis. Several diverse supervised machine learning, ensemble learning algorithms, and deep learning are applied to the data set. The results, using classifiers, are compared based on standard performance evaluation measures to reveal the significance of the proposed as well as existing features. It also shows that the novel features play a significant role in finding rising stars. The ensemble- based machine learning classifier generalized linear model outperforms all other classifiers and gives the highest accuracy and F-measure compared to other models and the existing studies in the relevant literature.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82011836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Academic institutions are exploring new mediums for publishing and disseminating research output; in this article, the author is primarily focused on the role of Academic Research Blog (ARB) maintained by universities, departments, or groups of scholars. Te author investigated the typical patterns and flaws of the current ARB; the analysis suggests that there is a need, and therefore an opportunity, to upgrade it in a new format, which the author calls the Quality Blog. Te Quality Blog is defined by a set of eighteen requirements (policies and characteristics). Some of these requirements are already present in the ARBs, while others are derived from the journal format. Te novelty of the Quality Blog format that is proposed consists in applying together all of these eighteen requirements (policies and characteristics), inclusively. Te Quality Blog will overcome the limitations that the ARBs have and be a more economically sound decision regarding costs for monograph and journal workflows. Te ‘Quality’ attribute refers to three dimensions: contents, processes, and technology; the practical and operational choices that each Quality Blog will need to make regarding these three quality dimensions will determine the success and sustainability of the project throughout the course of time. In examining the blogs of the top thirty-eight business schools, the author investigates the blogs by cataloging the types of blogs and then the digital platform used. Of these institutions, 90 per cent have created and maintain blogs, and 51 per cent use the ARB powered by a content management system. These results reveal that the Quality Blog would be a new paradigm of research communications to adopt in place of ARB by higher education institutions, research groups, and initiatives interested in promoting academic publishing projects both in science, technology, and mathematics and in humanities and social science subject areas, and re-prioritizes faster, real-time academic communication.
{"title":"The Quality Blog: Proposal of a New Format in Lieu of Academic Research Blog","authors":"Giovanni Salucci","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2023-0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2023-0001","url":null,"abstract":"Academic institutions are exploring new mediums for publishing and disseminating research output; in this article, the author is primarily focused on the role of Academic Research Blog (ARB) maintained by universities, departments, or groups of scholars. Te author investigated the typical patterns and flaws of the current ARB; the analysis suggests that there is a need, and therefore an opportunity, to upgrade it in a new format, which the author calls the Quality Blog. Te Quality Blog is defined by a set of eighteen requirements (policies and characteristics). Some of these requirements are already present in the ARBs, while others are derived from the journal format. Te novelty of the Quality Blog format that is proposed consists in applying together all of these eighteen requirements (policies and characteristics), inclusively. Te Quality Blog will overcome the limitations that the ARBs have and be a more economically sound decision regarding costs for monograph and journal workflows. Te ‘Quality’ attribute refers to three dimensions: contents, processes, and technology; the practical and operational choices that each Quality Blog will need to make regarding these three quality dimensions will determine the success and sustainability of the project throughout the course of time. In examining the blogs of the top thirty-eight business schools, the author investigates the blogs by cataloging the types of blogs and then the digital platform used. Of these institutions, 90 per cent have created and maintain blogs, and 51 per cent use the ARB powered by a content management system. These results reveal that the Quality Blog would be a new paradigm of research communications to adopt in place of ARB by higher education institutions, research groups, and initiatives interested in promoting academic publishing projects both in science, technology, and mathematics and in humanities and social science subject areas, and re-prioritizes faster, real-time academic communication.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79799019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Te authors assess the current status of scholarly publishing and reach the conclusion that the current situation is both in a state of flux and not sustainable. While such an assessment is becoming increasingly well understood, a solution to the problems seemingly does not exist. What even embodies an improvement to the current state of scholarly publishing depends on one’s perspective. Te authors approach the problem from the perspective of the main producers and consumers of scholarly knowledge—academic and governmental research institutions. From this perspective, they define a set of objectives for scholarly publishing and dissemination of published works, and they assess the challenges with current approaches to meeting these objectives for commercial publishers, professional organization publishers, and academic press publishers. Based on this analysis, the authors propose a new model for academic publishing that might help achieve the stated objectives. Te academic research community alliance model suggested is based on the scholarly community taking on the responsibilities of peer review, article production, and knowledge dissemination while acting in an altruistic way of doing so. Te proposed approach is described in detail, and both challenges and potential solutions to the impediments to implementing this model are explored. Finally, the authors report on initial efforts to build support for the proposed model, which suggests that meaningful progress on this difficult problem is possible.
{"title":"Toward a Potential Solution of the Crisis in Scholarly Publishing: An Academic Research Community Alliance Model","authors":"Cassie P. Miller, R. Rice","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0073","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0073","url":null,"abstract":"Te authors assess the current status of scholarly publishing and reach the conclusion that the current situation is both in a state of flux and not sustainable. While such an assessment is becoming increasingly well understood, a solution to the problems seemingly does not exist. What even embodies an improvement to the current state of scholarly publishing depends on one’s perspective. Te authors approach the problem from the perspective of the main producers and consumers of scholarly knowledge—academic and governmental research institutions. From this perspective, they define a set of objectives for scholarly publishing and dissemination of published works, and they assess the challenges with current approaches to meeting these objectives for commercial publishers, professional organization publishers, and academic press publishers. Based on this analysis, the authors propose a new model for academic publishing that might help achieve the stated objectives. Te academic research community alliance model suggested is based on the scholarly community taking on the responsibilities of peer review, article production, and knowledge dissemination while acting in an altruistic way of doing so. Te proposed approach is described in detail, and both challenges and potential solutions to the impediments to implementing this model are explored. Finally, the authors report on initial efforts to build support for the proposed model, which suggests that meaningful progress on this difficult problem is possible.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80747310","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Journal evaluation methodologies are often used to produce journal-ranking lists for various purposes. In this study, the authors present a modularity-based journal evaluation methodology based on the proportional contributions that journals receive from authors affiliated with globally ranked institutions. This empirically developed methodology draws on a stratification of institutions in the global rankings to allocate weights to article batches in a given journal. The authors apply the proposed methodology to evaluating 12,150 scholarly journals in different subject fields. The results show an elitist set of journals with a heavy tendency to publish mostly from authors affiliated with the top-ranked institutions. These journals have the highest weighted author affiliation index (WAAI) scores and are highly distinguished titles in different subject fields. However, the authors find a large population of journals that receive contributions mostly from institutions at lower ranks. They argue that the WAAI methodology provides a generic and objective evaluation technique for ranking journals across all disciplines.
{"title":"WAAI: A Weighted Author Afliation Index for Journal Evaluation","authors":"Javad Hayatdavoudi, M. Goltaji, Mansour Haghighat","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0074","url":null,"abstract":"Journal evaluation methodologies are often used to produce journal-ranking lists for various purposes. In this study, the authors present a modularity-based journal evaluation methodology based on the proportional contributions that journals receive from authors affiliated with globally ranked institutions. This empirically developed methodology draws on a stratification of institutions in the global rankings to allocate weights to article batches in a given journal. The authors apply the proposed methodology to evaluating 12,150 scholarly journals in different subject fields. The results show an elitist set of journals with a heavy tendency to publish mostly from authors affiliated with the top-ranked institutions. These journals have the highest weighted author affiliation index (WAAI) scores and are highly distinguished titles in different subject fields. However, the authors find a large population of journals that receive contributions mostly from institutions at lower ranks. They argue that the WAAI methodology provides a generic and objective evaluation technique for ranking journals across all disciplines.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85500346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Scholar performance evaluation plays a key role in management science and engineering. Scholar evaluation using Google Scholar and ResearchGate can serve as an indispensable scouter for evaluating scholar performance. Both tools to quantitatively evaluate scholars can be used to support evidence-based decision making in administration and human resources. However, both tools must be used together for complementing accurate scholar evaluation. Tis author shows examples of fatal drawbacks in Google Scholar and ResearchGate, respectively. Scopus and Publons, used as default scholar performance, are afected by publisher-bias selection of journals and conferences. Te author recommends scholar performance evaluation using both tools such as Google Scholar and ResearchGate together with Scopus and Publons.
{"title":"Credibility on Scholar Performance Evaluation Using Google Scholar and ResearchGate","authors":"Y. Takefuji","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0076","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0076","url":null,"abstract":"Scholar performance evaluation plays a key role in management science and engineering. Scholar evaluation using Google Scholar and ResearchGate can serve as an indispensable scouter for evaluating scholar performance. Both tools to quantitatively evaluate scholars can be used to support evidence-based decision making in administration and human resources. However, both tools must be used together for complementing accurate scholar evaluation. Tis author shows examples of fatal drawbacks in Google Scholar and ResearchGate, respectively. Scopus and Publons, used as default scholar performance, are afected by publisher-bias selection of journals and conferences. Te author recommends scholar performance evaluation using both tools such as Google Scholar and ResearchGate together with Scopus and Publons.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82402520","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In biomedical papers resulting from the cooperation of a biomedical team and a statistical team, the leader of the statistical team is traditionally placed second-to-last in the authors’ list. In many papers, the leader of the statistical team designs, initiates, and supervises the project, so they play a key role in the production of a scientific publication. This key role is not reflected in systems of evaluation of scientific publications in which the second-to-last author receives equal or less credit than the other co-authors.
{"title":"Chief Statisticians as Second-to-Last Authors in Biomedical Papers","authors":"Adam Gregosiewicz, M. Kosmulski","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0059","url":null,"abstract":"In biomedical papers resulting from the cooperation of a biomedical team and a statistical team, the leader of the statistical team is traditionally placed second-to-last in the authors’ list. In many papers, the leader of the statistical team designs, initiates, and supervises the project, so they play a key role in the production of a scientific publication. This key role is not reflected in systems of evaluation of scientific publications in which the second-to-last author receives equal or less credit than the other co-authors.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73065459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Refutation articles may be unpopular with journal editors for various reasons, not only because refutations dwell on the already-published rather than present alluring new findings. Refutations can generate discomfort in casting a harsh spotlight on screening processes and may not fare well in editorial decisions regarding acceptance/rejection. This is unfortunate, since refutations are vital to healthy open debate, allowing academics with genuine concerns about published research a voice. Consequently, there should be a place for carefully researched, thoroughly peer-reviewed refutations. This article explores these issues with reference to an illustrative case study of a rejected refutation. This refutation was produced in response to a misleading claim about an English language teacher education project in Oman. The reader is invited to consider whether this refutation, which was favourably peer-reviewed but then rejected by the editor, deserved closer consideration.
{"title":"You Might Have to Refute, but Unfortunately the Path to Doing So May Not Be So Clear: A Case Study","authors":"M. Wyatt","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2023-0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2023-0004","url":null,"abstract":"Refutation articles may be unpopular with journal editors for various reasons, not only because refutations dwell on the already-published rather than present alluring new findings. Refutations can generate discomfort in casting a harsh spotlight on screening processes and may not fare well in editorial decisions regarding acceptance/rejection. This is unfortunate, since refutations are vital to healthy open debate, allowing academics with genuine concerns about published research a voice. Consequently, there should be a place for carefully researched, thoroughly peer-reviewed refutations. This article explores these issues with reference to an illustrative case study of a rejected refutation. This refutation was produced in response to a misleading claim about an English language teacher education project in Oman. The reader is invited to consider whether this refutation, which was favourably peer-reviewed but then rejected by the editor, deserved closer consideration.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76195228","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Tien-Trung Nguyen, Hiep-Hung Pham, Van-An Nguyen-Le, C. H. Nguyen, Trung Tran
Abstract:Since the emergence of the internet and open science in the 1990s, "predatory journals," or "predatory publishing," have attracted the increasing attention of scholars. Research on the topic has grown at a rapid rate, particularly in the last five years. This article serves as the first bibliometric review on the topic of "predators in the scientific publication" and draws on 869 published articles from the Scopus database between 2012 and 30 March 2022. These papers were produced by a total of 1586 authors, coming from 101 countries, representing 1538 organizations, and published in 501 journals. Research disciplines mostly covered the fields of medicine, social sciences, and nursing. This study also reveals the complexity of issues and research trends around the topic of predatory scientific publications, including the review process for scientific journals, publication fees and article processing charges, open science and open-access publications, and the like and related topics such as the impact on scholars in developing countries and academic ethics. Finally, this article provides several recommendations, namely, the need for more efficient criteria to evaluate the quality of scientific journals, more public communication on the importance of ethics in research and publication, and a greater awareness among scholars and organizations of the implications of the "predator" issue in scientific publishing.
{"title":"Review of Research on Predatory Scientific Publications from Scopus Database between 2012 and 2022","authors":"Tien-Trung Nguyen, Hiep-Hung Pham, Van-An Nguyen-Le, C. H. Nguyen, Trung Tran","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0045","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Since the emergence of the internet and open science in the 1990s, \"predatory journals,\" or \"predatory publishing,\" have attracted the increasing attention of scholars. Research on the topic has grown at a rapid rate, particularly in the last five years. This article serves as the first bibliometric review on the topic of \"predators in the scientific publication\" and draws on 869 published articles from the Scopus database between 2012 and 30 March 2022. These papers were produced by a total of 1586 authors, coming from 101 countries, representing 1538 organizations, and published in 501 journals. Research disciplines mostly covered the fields of medicine, social sciences, and nursing. This study also reveals the complexity of issues and research trends around the topic of predatory scientific publications, including the review process for scientific journals, publication fees and article processing charges, open science and open-access publications, and the like and related topics such as the impact on scholars in developing countries and academic ethics. Finally, this article provides several recommendations, namely, the need for more efficient criteria to evaluate the quality of scientific journals, more public communication on the importance of ethics in research and publication, and a greater awareness among scholars and organizations of the implications of the \"predator\" issue in scientific publishing.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83365478","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:As scholarly publishing continues to expand its international dimension in the globalizing era, authors in non-Anglophone contexts today are increasingly confronted with the decision to publish nationally or internationally. Linguistic challenges aside, such a decision is complicated by the tension between local interests and international solidarity with changing conventions of scholarly publishing in the national context. This study investigated one facet of this tension by comparing national and international publishing activities in the humanities and social sciences based on the data collected from the websites of sixty Chinese-medium national journals and sixty English-medium international journals. The findings point to a complex interplay between local and international traditions, norms, and politics of knowledge production. What these changes mean and how they may bear on author choice is discussed with implications for understanding the dynamic landscape of scholarly publishing in non-Anglophone systems of knowledge production.
{"title":"Publishing Nationally or Internationally in the Humanities and Social Sciences: What Do Journal Websites Say about the Divide?","authors":"Ningyang Chen","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0019","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:As scholarly publishing continues to expand its international dimension in the globalizing era, authors in non-Anglophone contexts today are increasingly confronted with the decision to publish nationally or internationally. Linguistic challenges aside, such a decision is complicated by the tension between local interests and international solidarity with changing conventions of scholarly publishing in the national context. This study investigated one facet of this tension by comparing national and international publishing activities in the humanities and social sciences based on the data collected from the websites of sixty Chinese-medium national journals and sixty English-medium international journals. The findings point to a complex interplay between local and international traditions, norms, and politics of knowledge production. What these changes mean and how they may bear on author choice is discussed with implications for understanding the dynamic landscape of scholarly publishing in non-Anglophone systems of knowledge production.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91108302","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","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：