{"title":"Things Are More Complicated Now: Scholarly Journals and the Dissemination of Academic Research","authors":"D. Poff","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2023-0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2023-0016","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"115 1","pages":"173 - 174"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78727943","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:The scale of predatory journals in the biomedical field is proliferating worldwide. In China, numerous cases of academic misconduct have occurred in international biomedical journals. The study aims to understand the sociodemographic characteristics of Chinese authors publishing in predatory biomedical journals and their perceptions of predatory journals. In predatory biomedical journals, 1408 Chinese scholars with 1482 published papers were identified. A questionnaire on predatory journals was emailed to them to analyse their perceptions of predatory journals. The study finds that provinces and cities with more authors are mainly distributed in eastern and central China. Authors mainly worked in hospitals (n = 1162, 82.53 per cent) and schools (n = 246, 17.47 per cent). Among hospitals, forty-eight are currently ranked in the top fifty in China. A total of ninety-three (7 per cent) authors responded to the questionnaire. Only half of the authors knew the concept of predatory journals (n = 45, 48.39 per cent). Most respondents would not consider choosing predatory journals again (n = 85, 91.40 per cent). Among all the corresponding authors, doctors working in top Chinese hospitals made up the majority. Chinese authors had insufficient knowledge of predatory journals, although most had professional expertise.
{"title":"Who is Publishing in Biomedical Predatory Journals? A Study on Chinese Scholars","authors":"Jiahao Wang, Cheng Yang, Ming Chen","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0066","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The scale of predatory journals in the biomedical field is proliferating worldwide. In China, numerous cases of academic misconduct have occurred in international biomedical journals. The study aims to understand the sociodemographic characteristics of Chinese authors publishing in predatory biomedical journals and their perceptions of predatory journals. In predatory biomedical journals, 1408 Chinese scholars with 1482 published papers were identified. A questionnaire on predatory journals was emailed to them to analyse their perceptions of predatory journals. The study finds that provinces and cities with more authors are mainly distributed in eastern and central China. Authors mainly worked in hospitals (n = 1162, 82.53 per cent) and schools (n = 246, 17.47 per cent). Among hospitals, forty-eight are currently ranked in the top fifty in China. A total of ninety-three (7 per cent) authors responded to the questionnaire. Only half of the authors knew the concept of predatory journals (n = 45, 48.39 per cent). Most respondents would not consider choosing predatory journals again (n = 85, 91.40 per cent). Among all the corresponding authors, doctors working in top Chinese hospitals made up the majority. Chinese authors had insufficient knowledge of predatory journals, although most had professional expertise.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"19 1","pages":"290 - 312"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74638820","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}
{"title":"Books and Social Media: How the Digital Age is Shaping the Printed Word by Miriam J. Johnson (review)","authors":"Jingan Chen","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0077","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0077","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"110 1","pages":"371 - 376"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89183978","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}
Shiva Ferdousi, V. Z. Gavgani, S. Oskouei, H. Hosseinifard
Abstract:Different factors influence the altmetric attentions for scholarly articles on social media. This study aimed to evaluate the effecting factors on altmetric coverage of journals in non-English-speaking countries. Using a total population sampling technique, we included all Iranian and Turkish journals published from 2016 to 2019. Altmetric data were collected from altmetric.com using an application programming interface, for the coverage of mentions aggregated by the journal articles on Twitter, Facebook, and news media. The correlations between the languages, field of study, Google PageRank (GPR) score, and availability of a 'share button' with mentions were calculated using non-parametric tests. Among all articles, 2,378 articles were scholarly communicated on social media, and there were 7,191 mentions in the evaluated platforms. The scholarly publication of Iran and Turkey differed greatly concerning the subject matter. However, Twitter ranked first among the highly used alternative metrics for scholarly communication in both countries. The number of mentions for English journals was higher than for bilingual ones. Moreover, there was a positive correlation between the GPR and the coverage of mentions on Twitter and news media.
{"title":"Evaluating the Factors Affecting Scholarly Communication of Journal Articles on Social and News Media: An Altmetric Study","authors":"Shiva Ferdousi, V. Z. Gavgani, S. Oskouei, H. Hosseinifard","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0034","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Different factors influence the altmetric attentions for scholarly articles on social media. This study aimed to evaluate the effecting factors on altmetric coverage of journals in non-English-speaking countries. Using a total population sampling technique, we included all Iranian and Turkish journals published from 2016 to 2019. Altmetric data were collected from altmetric.com using an application programming interface, for the coverage of mentions aggregated by the journal articles on Twitter, Facebook, and news media. The correlations between the languages, field of study, Google PageRank (GPR) score, and availability of a 'share button' with mentions were calculated using non-parametric tests. Among all articles, 2,378 articles were scholarly communicated on social media, and there were 7,191 mentions in the evaluated platforms. The scholarly publication of Iran and Turkey differed greatly concerning the subject matter. However, Twitter ranked first among the highly used alternative metrics for scholarly communication in both countries. The number of mentions for English journals was higher than for bilingual ones. Moreover, there was a positive correlation between the GPR and the coverage of mentions on Twitter and news media.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"58-60 1","pages":"220 - 238"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77191667","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:The present study explores English as a foreign language (EFL) learners' processes and strategies when using machine translation (MT) tools in academic abstract writing. Eight EFL graduate students were introduced to translation-friendly writing strategies using Google Translate and were required to produce an English abstract with the aid of a machine translation tool. The study used qualitative and quantitative approaches in data collection and analysis. A triangulation process was developed and implemented, including think-aloud protocols during the writing session, surveys, and individual interviews after the writing session. The findings suggested that the translation-friendly writing strategies introduced to the participants were useful in enhancing the quality of their writing. Each participant demonstrated individual strategic uses of MT. Among the various strategies reported, back translation was the most commonly adopted one; that is, they first composed an abstract in Chinese (L1) and engaged in multiple rounds of translation between Chinese and English using MT; when problems were identified in the English abstract, they modified the Chinese abstract using translation-friendly writing strategies to enhance the quality of MT translation output. Most of the translation problems identified by the participants were related to non-academic expressions. While participants were satisfied with the quality of the abstracts produced with the aid of MT, they raised ethical concerns regarding the use of MT in academic writing. These findings suggest that MT has fundamentally changed the process of academic writing in English and call for the re-examination of the purpose of academic writing instruction and the approaches employed.
{"title":"Exploring the Process and Strategies of Chinese–English Abstract Writing Using Machine Translation Tools","authors":"Yu-Chih Sun, Fang‐Ying Yang","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0039","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The present study explores English as a foreign language (EFL) learners' processes and strategies when using machine translation (MT) tools in academic abstract writing. Eight EFL graduate students were introduced to translation-friendly writing strategies using Google Translate and were required to produce an English abstract with the aid of a machine translation tool. The study used qualitative and quantitative approaches in data collection and analysis. A triangulation process was developed and implemented, including think-aloud protocols during the writing session, surveys, and individual interviews after the writing session. The findings suggested that the translation-friendly writing strategies introduced to the participants were useful in enhancing the quality of their writing. Each participant demonstrated individual strategic uses of MT. Among the various strategies reported, back translation was the most commonly adopted one; that is, they first composed an abstract in Chinese (L1) and engaged in multiple rounds of translation between Chinese and English using MT; when problems were identified in the English abstract, they modified the Chinese abstract using translation-friendly writing strategies to enhance the quality of MT translation output. Most of the translation problems identified by the participants were related to non-academic expressions. While participants were satisfied with the quality of the abstracts produced with the aid of MT, they raised ethical concerns regarding the use of MT in academic writing. These findings suggest that MT has fundamentally changed the process of academic writing in English and call for the re-examination of the purpose of academic writing instruction and the approaches employed.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"215 1","pages":"260 - 289"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79582440","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}
{"title":"Integrating Technology in English Language Arts Teacher Education by Donna L. Pasternak","authors":"Nermin Punar Özçelik","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2023-0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2023-0003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75348485","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:ResearchGate (RG) is a popular academic social media networking platform for scientists, researchers, or academics (SRAs). RG automatically provides a metric, the RG Score, to each RG account holder that serves as a measure of that SRA's "academic" worth, productivity, and interaction with other SRAs. In 2017, this metric was described by RG as "the RG Score takes all your research and turns it into a source of reputation," indicating that "it is calculated based on the research in your profile and how other researchers interact with your content." However, the precise manner in which the RG Score is calculated was never made public because it is a proprietary algorithm, and requests to RG to disclose details of the equations used to calculate it were not met. Not unsurprisingly, RG announced that it would be phasing out the RG Score in June 2022. This article examines what is known in the literature about the RG Score, which may be perceived as a skewed metric because it may add excessive weighting to select aspects, such as questions and answers, rather than to the published literature of an SRA. The RG Interest Score is also critiqued. An author-based metric such as the RG Score that reflects a realistic balance between the most important academic factors while downplaying fairly redundant aspects such as the volume of answers might benefit SRAs. As for any metric, the RG Score should not be used in isolation, be gamed, or used as the basis of any financial remuneration schemes.
{"title":"Reflection on ResearchGate's Terminating ResearchGate Score, and Interest Score, as Social Media Altmetrics and Academic Evaluation Tools","authors":"J. A. Teixeira da Silva, Yuki Yamada","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0043","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:ResearchGate (RG) is a popular academic social media networking platform for scientists, researchers, or academics (SRAs). RG automatically provides a metric, the RG Score, to each RG account holder that serves as a measure of that SRA's \"academic\" worth, productivity, and interaction with other SRAs. In 2017, this metric was described by RG as \"the RG Score takes all your research and turns it into a source of reputation,\" indicating that \"it is calculated based on the research in your profile and how other researchers interact with your content.\" However, the precise manner in which the RG Score is calculated was never made public because it is a proprietary algorithm, and requests to RG to disclose details of the equations used to calculate it were not met. Not unsurprisingly, RG announced that it would be phasing out the RG Score in June 2022. This article examines what is known in the literature about the RG Score, which may be perceived as a skewed metric because it may add excessive weighting to select aspects, such as questions and answers, rather than to the published literature of an SRA. The RG Interest Score is also critiqued. An author-based metric such as the RG Score that reflects a realistic balance between the most important academic factors while downplaying fairly redundant aspects such as the volume of answers might benefit SRAs. As for any metric, the RG Score should not be used in isolation, be gamed, or used as the basis of any financial remuneration schemes.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"16 1","pages":"239 - 259"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81507047","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:The outbreak of COVID-19 has changed the world in many aspects, and global scientific research has also been challenged. Early-career researchers (ECRs) who just start academic careers are prominently affected by the pandemic. To explore how Chinese ECRs have been affected, longitudinal qualitative interviews were conducted with twenty-four Chinese ECRs from different disciplines and universities in 2020 and 2021. As the results show, Chinese ECRs worry that their future prospects are limited by increased workloads and reduced productivity. However, the new wave of change did not occur for them, and their work resumed its routine and was relatively stable. Over two years, Chinese ECRs got used to working from home and giving online courses, but they were increasingly confused about when the pandemic will end. What bothers ECRs most is the inefficiency of communication and collaboration due to the travel bans, although they became familiar with the online way.
{"title":"Early-Career Researchers in China during the Pandemic: Qualitative Evidence from a Longitudinal Study","authors":"Jie Xu, Chen He, David Nicholas, Na Zhang","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0040","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The outbreak of COVID-19 has changed the world in many aspects, and global scientific research has also been challenged. Early-career researchers (ECRs) who just start academic careers are prominently affected by the pandemic. To explore how Chinese ECRs have been affected, longitudinal qualitative interviews were conducted with twenty-four Chinese ECRs from different disciplines and universities in 2020 and 2021. As the results show, Chinese ECRs worry that their future prospects are limited by increased workloads and reduced productivity. However, the new wave of change did not occur for them, and their work resumed its routine and was relatively stable. Over two years, Chinese ECRs got used to working from home and giving online courses, but they were increasingly confused about when the pandemic will end. What bothers ECRs most is the inefficiency of communication and collaboration due to the travel bans, although they became familiar with the online way.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"3 1","pages":"338 - 370"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86486053","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}
3. Germano notes, astutely, that ‘when writers on writing say something about what makes a book work, the first thing they emphasize is often the writer’s voice’ (157). Germano’s is a voice of someone I would delight in inviting to dinner. 4. With respect to copy-editing, readers can consult the grammar, spelling, and style guides of their choice. Or, perhaps closer to Haag’s method, see Claire Kehrwald Cook, Line by Line: How to Improve Your Own Writing (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985); or Virginia Tufte, Artful Sentences: Syntax as Style (Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press, 2006). 5. I love what Haag offers about titles: All authors should aim to ‘distill in one elegant title the premise’ of the book (89). Given the misleading nature of perfection vis-à-vis revising, though, I was more predisposed to appreciate Germano’s masterfully subtitled book. 6. A book that falls midway between Germano’s and Haag’s approaches is Scott Norton’s Developmental Editing: A Handbook for Freelancers, Authors, and Publishers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009). Norton successfully presents lengthier examples while engaging with macro-level issues; his book consequently requires more of a commitment from its readers. 7. Examples of Haag’s ‘trickster clichés’ include in their infinite wisdom, rear its ugly head, and fraught with peril (269). 8. Sixty-five considerations make for a lot of passes through a text! But similar issues can be addressed simultaneously, since the aim is to learn how to become a good self-editor. To that end, both Germano and Haag wisely recommend reading one’s text aloud. 9. But, indeed, as Haag points out, ‘Shortening a manuscript is challenging work’ (200).
{"title":"How to Conduct an Effective Peer Review by Gloria Barczak and Abbie Griffin (review)","authors":"Steven E. Gump","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0029","url":null,"abstract":"3. Germano notes, astutely, that ‘when writers on writing say something about what makes a book work, the first thing they emphasize is often the writer’s voice’ (157). Germano’s is a voice of someone I would delight in inviting to dinner. 4. With respect to copy-editing, readers can consult the grammar, spelling, and style guides of their choice. Or, perhaps closer to Haag’s method, see Claire Kehrwald Cook, Line by Line: How to Improve Your Own Writing (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985); or Virginia Tufte, Artful Sentences: Syntax as Style (Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press, 2006). 5. I love what Haag offers about titles: All authors should aim to ‘distill in one elegant title the premise’ of the book (89). Given the misleading nature of perfection vis-à-vis revising, though, I was more predisposed to appreciate Germano’s masterfully subtitled book. 6. A book that falls midway between Germano’s and Haag’s approaches is Scott Norton’s Developmental Editing: A Handbook for Freelancers, Authors, and Publishers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009). Norton successfully presents lengthier examples while engaging with macro-level issues; his book consequently requires more of a commitment from its readers. 7. Examples of Haag’s ‘trickster clichés’ include in their infinite wisdom, rear its ugly head, and fraught with peril (269). 8. Sixty-five considerations make for a lot of passes through a text! But similar issues can be addressed simultaneously, since the aim is to learn how to become a good self-editor. To that end, both Germano and Haag wisely recommend reading one’s text aloud. 9. But, indeed, as Haag points out, ‘Shortening a manuscript is challenging work’ (200).","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"11 1","pages":"157 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75132728","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:This article makes a historical assessment of a publishing ‘experiment’ that started in 2020 and ended in 2022 by Academia.edu, a popular academic social network site, that took the form of a peer-reviewed ‘journal,’ Academia Letters. The authors discovered a publicly hidden open-access cost, as an article processing charge of US$500, some inconsistencies or ambiguities in select editorial policies, the lack of an editorial board, and the absence of an integrity and publishing ethics policy, cumulatively indicating that this publishing model was lacking some basic, robust scholarly indices that are typically found in conventional peer-reviewed journals. Despite its short two-year history, about 4500 papers were published in Academia Letters, suggesting that this publishing model was nonetheless attractive and popular. This overview of Academia Letters will allow Academia.edu and other academic publishers to reflect on specifics or weaknesses of this publishing model before using it in the future to ensure trustworthy scholarly communication in the academic community.
{"title":"Academia Letters: Examination of an ‘Experimental’ Academia.edu Publishing Model","authors":"Yuki Yamada, J. A. Teixeira da Silva","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0028","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article makes a historical assessment of a publishing ‘experiment’ that started in 2020 and ended in 2022 by Academia.edu, a popular academic social network site, that took the form of a peer-reviewed ‘journal,’ Academia Letters. The authors discovered a publicly hidden open-access cost, as an article processing charge of US$500, some inconsistencies or ambiguities in select editorial policies, the lack of an editorial board, and the absence of an integrity and publishing ethics policy, cumulatively indicating that this publishing model was lacking some basic, robust scholarly indices that are typically found in conventional peer-reviewed journals. Despite its short two-year history, about 4500 papers were published in Academia Letters, suggesting that this publishing model was nonetheless attractive and popular. This overview of Academia Letters will allow Academia.edu and other academic publishers to reflect on specifics or weaknesses of this publishing model before using it in the future to ensure trustworthy scholarly communication in the academic community.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"7 1","pages":"103 - 120"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83720505","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：