Most studies on public sector benchmarking focus on performance indicators, processes, and outcomes of managed benchmarking. This article, instead, explores the formation of spontaneous interstate benchmarking networks among U.S. state agency leaders. Informed by social comparison theory, we first recategorize benchmarking into best practice benchmarking and competitive benchmarking. Then, we quantify two benchmarking networks with a survey dataset and employ the Exponential Random Graph Model to analyze both endogenous and exogenous factors in the formation of both types of benchmarking networks. We find that the best practice benchmarking network has a popularity effect, while the competitive benchmarking network has mutuality and transitivity effects. Both types of benchmarking networks are more likely to form among states with historical policy diffusion ties and similar economic and geographic characteristics. This study contributes to the literature on public sector benchmarking and network research by exploring the factors that influence the formation of benchmarking networks.
{"title":"What shapes the formation of interstate benchmarking networks?","authors":"Shuai Cao, Hongtao Yi","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12604","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12604","url":null,"abstract":"Most studies on public sector benchmarking focus on performance indicators, processes, and outcomes of managed benchmarking. This article, instead, explores the formation of spontaneous interstate benchmarking networks among U.S. state agency leaders. Informed by social comparison theory, we first recategorize benchmarking into best practice benchmarking and competitive benchmarking. Then, we quantify two benchmarking networks with a survey dataset and employ the Exponential Random Graph Model to analyze both endogenous and exogenous factors in the formation of both types of benchmarking networks. We find that the best practice benchmarking network has a popularity effect, while the competitive benchmarking network has mutuality and transitivity effects. Both types of benchmarking networks are more likely to form among states with historical policy diffusion ties and similar economic and geographic characteristics. This study contributes to the literature on public sector benchmarking and network research by exploring the factors that influence the formation of benchmarking networks.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139956173","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Do authoritarian regimes adopt similar or equal policies? Despite the large literature on policy convergence in democracies, we know little about whether and to what extent authoritarian regimes follow analogous paths. This article argues that similar policy legacy, political and institutional context, and international influences lead to policy convergence among nondemocratic regimes. Analyzing welfare state trajectories in Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan, the empirical analysis finds that the welfare state in the three post-Soviet countries has converged at the level of social spending and the source of welfare financing, while divergence persists in disaggregated levels of social spending; configuration of key welfare programs, particularly in old-age pensions and unemployment; and the extent of welfare state reforms. Overall, the findings provide important insights into the determinants of policy convergence in nondemocratic regimes and yield critical implications for future research on the welfare state's trajectory in former Soviet countries.
{"title":"Policy convergence in authoritarian regimes: A comparative analysis of welfare state trajectories in post-Soviet countries","authors":"Angelo Vito Panaro","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12600","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12600","url":null,"abstract":"Do authoritarian regimes adopt similar or equal policies? Despite the large literature on policy convergence in democracies, we know little about whether and to what extent authoritarian regimes follow analogous paths. This article argues that similar policy legacy, political and institutional context, and international influences lead to policy convergence among nondemocratic regimes. Analyzing welfare state trajectories in Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan, the empirical analysis finds that the welfare state in the three post-Soviet countries has converged at the level of social spending and the source of welfare financing, while divergence persists in disaggregated levels of social spending; configuration of key welfare programs, particularly in old-age pensions and unemployment; and the extent of welfare state reforms. Overall, the findings provide important insights into the determinants of policy convergence in nondemocratic regimes and yield critical implications for future research on the welfare state's trajectory in former Soviet countries.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139770985","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article, we examine the ways in which the futures of climate change and the climate change policy process are constructed as narratives—both explicitly and implicitly—in two different yet interconnected contexts that shape public climate discourse and debate: foresight-based political decision-making and journalism. The featured case is the National Energy and Climate Strategy of Finland for 2030. We employ and expand the Narrative Policy Framework to better understand the co-existent, implicit narratives of the future in the contexts of policy and media. We construct two co-existing yet contradictory underlying narratives of the future of climate change and climate policy. Our approach reveals that the prevailing master narrative of a desirable future is challenged by a co-existing counter narrative where policies in the energy and climate strategy prioritize shorter-term policy interests over climate change. Building on these findings, we argue that, in climate policy communication, communicators convey futures through narratives—both explicitly, as descriptions of what is perceived, hoped, and anticipated to happen, and implicitly, as the sum of the parts included and excluded.
{"title":"Alternative policy narratives of the future of climate change: Analyzing Finland's energy and climate strategy and news reports","authors":"Marjukka Parkkinen, Suvi Vikström","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12602","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12602","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we examine the ways in which the futures of climate change and the climate change policy process are constructed as narratives—both explicitly and implicitly—in two different yet interconnected contexts that shape public climate discourse and debate: foresight-based political decision-making and journalism. The featured case is the National Energy and Climate Strategy of Finland for 2030. We employ and expand the Narrative Policy Framework to better understand the co-existent, implicit narratives of the future in the contexts of policy and media. We construct two co-existing yet contradictory underlying narratives of the future of climate change and climate policy. Our approach reveals that the prevailing master narrative of a desirable future is challenged by a co-existing counter narrative where policies in the energy and climate strategy prioritize shorter-term policy interests over climate change. Building on these findings, we argue that, in climate policy communication, communicators convey futures through narratives—both explicitly, as descriptions of what is perceived, hoped, and anticipated to happen, and implicitly, as the sum of the parts included and excluded.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139770804","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the literature on policy advice and analytical communities in democratic settings, think tanks are often assumed to be carriers of new ideas that serve as an informed and independent voice in policy debates. However, how much intellectual independence do think tanks have in authoritarian environments? This article tackles this question in a case study of Russian think tanks' discursive responses to two protracted crises: the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. The study employs a combination of deductive and inductive techniques to identify the discursive strategies used by think tank experts in their publications covering the crises. The findings suggest that there are differences in how think tanks communicate crises, which can be attributed to their institutional structures and position vis-à-vis the state. In some cases, the think tanks resort to polarization and discreditation of Western governments' crisis response, while openly endorsing the Russian state. In other cases, they engage in rationalization and more neutral analyses of the pandemic and climate change. However, regardless of these differences, they rarely concentrate on domestic challenges. Instead, they geopoliticize the crises, overemphasizing problematic developments elsewhere in the world, thus shifting attention in the public discourse away from domestic emergencies.
{"title":"Responding to crises in authoritarian environments: Russian think tanks between policy evaluation and state endorsement","authors":"Vera Axyonova","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12601","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12601","url":null,"abstract":"In the literature on policy advice and analytical communities in democratic settings, think tanks are often assumed to be carriers of new ideas that serve as an informed and independent voice in policy debates. However, how much intellectual independence do think tanks have in authoritarian environments? This article tackles this question in a case study of Russian think tanks' discursive responses to two protracted crises: the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. The study employs a combination of deductive and inductive techniques to identify the discursive strategies used by think tank experts in their publications covering the crises. The findings suggest that there are differences in how think tanks communicate crises, which can be attributed to their institutional structures and position vis-à-vis the state. In some cases, the think tanks resort to polarization and discreditation of Western governments' crisis response, while openly endorsing the Russian state. In other cases, they engage in rationalization and more neutral analyses of the pandemic and climate change. However, regardless of these differences, they rarely concentrate on domestic challenges. Instead, they geopoliticize the crises, overemphasizing problematic developments elsewhere in the world, thus shifting attention in the public discourse away from domestic emergencies.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139770747","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
To what extent can nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) communicate policy problems in an authoritarian country, and how limited are they in narrating policy alternatives? This article seeks to develop studies on the application of the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) in Russia, extend our knowledge about the use of narrative strategies in centralized and authoritarian policy processes, highlight certain methodological peculiarities related to the devil–angel shift calculation, and test causal mechanism hypotheses that have not previously been applied to the analysis of policy debates in Russia. The study examines hypotheses based on the narrative strategies (devil–angel shift, scope of conflict, and causal mechanisms) that were used by government and NGO coalitions in the debate about “landscape fire” policies in Russia over the period 2019–2021. The results show that the differences between the coalition's narrative strategies were not as significant as had been shown previously. The government coalition uses a strong angel shift in its narratives and avoids conflict expansion. The NGO coalition demonstrates a moderate angel shift, but with the use of conflict expansion in parts of the narratives. Both coalitions use the intentional or inadvertent causal mechanism blaming the citizens for starting the fires, but differ in employing causal mechanisms when discussing the large scale of landscape fires.
{"title":"Avoiding the blame game: NGOs and government narrative strategies in landscape fire policy debates in Russia","authors":"Tatiana Chalaya, Artem Uldanov","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12598","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12598","url":null,"abstract":"To what extent can nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) communicate policy problems in an authoritarian country, and how limited are they in narrating policy alternatives? This article seeks to develop studies on the application of the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) in Russia, extend our knowledge about the use of narrative strategies in centralized and authoritarian policy processes, highlight certain methodological peculiarities related to the devil–angel shift calculation, and test causal mechanism hypotheses that have not previously been applied to the analysis of policy debates in Russia. The study examines hypotheses based on the narrative strategies (devil–angel shift, scope of conflict, and causal mechanisms) that were used by government and NGO coalitions in the debate about “landscape fire” policies in Russia over the period 2019–2021. The results show that the differences between the coalition's narrative strategies were not as significant as had been shown previously. The government coalition uses a strong angel shift in its narratives and avoids conflict expansion. The NGO coalition demonstrates a moderate angel shift, but with the use of conflict expansion in parts of the narratives. Both coalitions use the intentional or inadvertent causal mechanism blaming the citizens for starting the fires, but differ in employing causal mechanisms when discussing the large scale of landscape fires.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139770670","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Introduction to the Special Issue on energy regionalism","authors":"Kathleen J. Hancock","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12599","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12599","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140477164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
To what extent do expert opinions affect public opinion in policy making? While most existing studies were conducted in democracies, experts' influence under authoritarian settings is still understudied. This paper examines how expert opinion and vocational affiliation influence public attitudes toward genetically modified (GM) food in China. Through a survey experiment with over 1600 respondents, we find that experts' endorsement can increase policy support for GM food but that their opposition exerts no influence. Different vocational affiliations do not generate significantly different effects, although endorsement from foreign experts has larger effects than endorsement from domestic counterparts, who have closer connections with the Chinese government. We finally discuss the policy implications of expert involvement in policy making and promoting GM food in China based on the above findings.
{"title":"Expert opinion and public support of genetically modified food policy: Does deficit model work in China?","authors":"Li Shao, Meng U. Ieong","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12603","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12603","url":null,"abstract":"To what extent do expert opinions affect public opinion in policy making? While most existing studies were conducted in democracies, experts' influence under authoritarian settings is still understudied. This paper examines how expert opinion and vocational affiliation influence public attitudes toward genetically modified (GM) food in China. Through a survey experiment with over 1600 respondents, we find that experts' endorsement can increase policy support for GM food but that their opposition exerts no influence. Different vocational affiliations do not generate significantly different effects, although endorsement from foreign experts has larger effects than endorsement from domestic counterparts, who have closer connections with the Chinese government. We finally discuss the policy implications of expert involvement in policy making and promoting GM food in China based on the above findings.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140471048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In April 2023, the EU institutions finally adopted an innovative international climate policy instrument: the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). As the long and winding road to a CBAM has included significant EU‐internal and EU‐external opposition, a “shifting Multi‐Level Reinforcement” (MLR) perspective is helpful for understanding this development. When France assumed initial leadership from 2007, skepticism to the WTO, generous amounts of free allowances, combined with a low carbon price, provided a strong oppositional force. Then, influential elements in the European Parliament called for a carbon border tax, which was subsequently included as a central ingredient in the “Fit for 55” package launched by the Commission, In the decisionmaking process, leadership involving all the previous forces resulted in an institutional reinforcement dynamic strong enough to counter EU‐internal as well as EU‐external challenges and ‘turbulence’. This case shows the relevance of an updated MLR perspective for understanding also other EU processes, taking into account the growing role of both policy packages and trilogues as decisionmaking tools, indicating a possible strengthened role for the Commission also in the decisionmaking phase.
{"title":"The EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism: Shaped and saved by shifting multi‐level reinforcement?","authors":"J. Wettestad","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12597","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12597","url":null,"abstract":"In April 2023, the EU institutions finally adopted an innovative international climate policy instrument: the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). As the long and winding road to a CBAM has included significant EU‐internal and EU‐external opposition, a “shifting Multi‐Level Reinforcement” (MLR) perspective is helpful for understanding this development. When France assumed initial leadership from 2007, skepticism to the WTO, generous amounts of free allowances, combined with a low carbon price, provided a strong oppositional force. Then, influential elements in the European Parliament called for a carbon border tax, which was subsequently included as a central ingredient in the “Fit for 55” package launched by the Commission, In the decisionmaking process, leadership involving all the previous forces resulted in an institutional reinforcement dynamic strong enough to counter EU‐internal as well as EU‐external challenges and ‘turbulence’. This case shows the relevance of an updated MLR perspective for understanding also other EU processes, taking into account the growing role of both policy packages and trilogues as decisionmaking tools, indicating a possible strengthened role for the Commission also in the decisionmaking phase.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139528163","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The policy process frameworks and theories that are currently considered mainstream were originally developed in the United States, before traveling to other countries. Despite their roots in democratic values, these frameworks and theories are increasingly applied to autocracies. Given important differences between democracies and autocracies, this raises questions about the desirability, limitations, and future directions of this development. In response, this article synthesizes findings from studies that apply existing policy process frameworks and theories to autocracies with the aim of assessing the extent to which the theories are, can, and should be used to explain key aspects of the policy process in autocracies. Based on qualitative content analysis of 146 English-language peer-reviewed journal articles that apply the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Multiple Streams Framework, the Narrative Policy Framework, and the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory to 39 autocracies, we show that these theories help identify influential institutions, actors, networks, ideas, beliefs, and events. The analysis reveals important differences in policy processes between autocracies and democracies. Future research ought to bring existing literature on authoritarianism and authoritarian politics into policy process research to test existing and new hypotheses.
{"title":"Policy process theories in autocracies: Key observations, explanatory power, and research priorities","authors":"Annemieke van den Dool, Caroline Schlaufer","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12596","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12596","url":null,"abstract":"The policy process frameworks and theories that are currently considered mainstream were originally developed in the United States, before traveling to other countries. Despite their roots in democratic values, these frameworks and theories are increasingly applied to autocracies. Given important differences between democracies and autocracies, this raises questions about the desirability, limitations, and future directions of this development. In response, this article synthesizes findings from studies that apply existing policy process frameworks and theories to autocracies with the aim of assessing the extent to which the theories are, can, and should be used to explain key aspects of the policy process in autocracies. Based on qualitative content analysis of 146 English-language peer-reviewed journal articles that apply the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Multiple Streams Framework, the Narrative Policy Framework, and the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory to 39 autocracies, we show that these theories help identify influential institutions, actors, networks, ideas, beliefs, and events. The analysis reveals important differences in policy processes between autocracies and democracies. Future research ought to bring existing literature on authoritarianism and authoritarian politics into policy process research to test existing and new hypotheses.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139556189","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Narratives play an essential role in fast‐paced policy making that occurs during crises. The COVID‐19 pandemic brought numerous disruptions of normality, including school closures, which were intensely debated in narratives by many policy actors. Two shutdowns of New York City's public school system affected over 1.1 million students. This article investigates how scientific evidence was used in the narratives surrounding the school shutdowns in NYC by analyzing around 160 policy narratives with the Narrative Policy Framework. We ask whether and how the growing certainty of evidence on the new Coronavirus was reflected in the policy narratives in the second compared to the first shutdown. While there is increased use of scientific evidence in the second shutdown stage, this does not reflect an increased evidence base: The evolving use of evidence in policy narratives is mainly reflected in its strategic uses to support a certain policy solution within a blame‐avoidance strategy.
{"title":"How does the use of evidence in policy narratives change during crises? A comparative study of New York City's pandemic school shutdowns","authors":"Nikolina Klatt, Sonja Blum","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12589","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12589","url":null,"abstract":"Narratives play an essential role in fast‐paced policy making that occurs during crises. The COVID‐19 pandemic brought numerous disruptions of normality, including school closures, which were intensely debated in narratives by many policy actors. Two shutdowns of New York City's public school system affected over 1.1 million students. This article investigates how scientific evidence was used in the narratives surrounding the school shutdowns in NYC by analyzing around 160 policy narratives with the Narrative Policy Framework. We ask whether and how the growing certainty of evidence on the new Coronavirus was reflected in the policy narratives in the second compared to the first shutdown. While there is increased use of scientific evidence in the second shutdown stage, this does not reflect an increased evidence base: The evolving use of evidence in policy narratives is mainly reflected in its strategic uses to support a certain policy solution within a blame‐avoidance strategy.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139529758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：