Abstract By deciding to condition the access of research organizations to its €95.5 billion Horizon Europe funding programme (2021–7) on providing evidence of a gender equality plan, the European Commission has made the challenge of certifying the gender equality performance of research organizations extremely urgent, not least to avoid the risk that such plans become a mere formality (‘box-ticking’). This challenge should not be underestimated, considering the extremely complex nature of the dynamics surrounding gender equality. In this article, we analyse the feasibility of establishing a European certification scheme that would assess gender equality policies and outcomes of research organizations, and present four alternative scenarios for its set-up, co-created with a wide range of stakeholders in a participatory step-by-step process. The results of the two-stage validation process of the four scenarios are also presented, providing policy implications and recommendations to support the effective roll-out of the certification schemes.
{"title":"Certifying complexity? The case of a European gender equality certification scheme for research-performing organizations","authors":"Marina Cacace, Francesca Pugliese, Charikleia Tzanakou, Jörg Müller, Alain Denis, Maria Sangiuliano","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad069","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad069","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract By deciding to condition the access of research organizations to its €95.5 billion Horizon Europe funding programme (2021–7) on providing evidence of a gender equality plan, the European Commission has made the challenge of certifying the gender equality performance of research organizations extremely urgent, not least to avoid the risk that such plans become a mere formality (‘box-ticking’). This challenge should not be underestimated, considering the extremely complex nature of the dynamics surrounding gender equality. In this article, we analyse the feasibility of establishing a European certification scheme that would assess gender equality policies and outcomes of research organizations, and present four alternative scenarios for its set-up, co-created with a wide range of stakeholders in a participatory step-by-step process. The results of the two-stage validation process of the four scenarios are also presented, providing policy implications and recommendations to support the effective roll-out of the certification schemes.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"55 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135774830","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 Biometric technology encompasses a proliferating array of data forms, applications, and stakeholders but has raised numerous social and ethical concerns. This article examines contending perceptions of biometrics by developing a three-way framework of science–society orderings, drawn from social studies of biometrics and wider science studies literature. By analysing documentary sources and participant observation data through this framework, the article identifies a series of distinct normative interpretations or imaginaries of biometrics. It is argued that these imaginaries, described, respectively, as ‘public good’, ‘collective control’, and ‘societal risks’, project contending normative framings of science–society relations. These imaginaries were also however found to reflexively encompass perceived challenges, giving rise to practices that I term imaginative politics. These findings raise the need for science policy studies to consider the distinction between imagining and realizing in greater depth and to consider more profoundly the politics of science–society co-production.
{"title":"Biometrics, presents, futures: the imaginative politics of science–society orderings","authors":"Christopher Lawless","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad071","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad071","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Biometric technology encompasses a proliferating array of data forms, applications, and stakeholders but has raised numerous social and ethical concerns. This article examines contending perceptions of biometrics by developing a three-way framework of science–society orderings, drawn from social studies of biometrics and wider science studies literature. By analysing documentary sources and participant observation data through this framework, the article identifies a series of distinct normative interpretations or imaginaries of biometrics. It is argued that these imaginaries, described, respectively, as ‘public good’, ‘collective control’, and ‘societal risks’, project contending normative framings of science–society relations. These imaginaries were also however found to reflexively encompass perceived challenges, giving rise to practices that I term imaginative politics. These findings raise the need for science policy studies to consider the distinction between imagining and realizing in greater depth and to consider more profoundly the politics of science–society co-production.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135775848","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 paper investigates gender bias (if any) when teams are formed. We use data from the European Science Foundation to estimate if female scientists have the same opportunities as their male colleagues to join a team when applying for funds. To assess gender bias, we construct a control group of scientists with the competencies for being invited to join the team but who do not join. By comparing the proportion of female scientists in the control group with the one in the observed teams, we find a gender bias against female scientists. Exploring heterogeneity across teams, we find that gender bias is less pronounced in teams led by women, junior scientists, and in more recently formed teams. We also observe differences across disciplines.
{"title":"Gender bias in team formation: the case of the European Science Foundation’s grants","authors":"Michele Pezzoni, Fabiana Visentin","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad058","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper investigates gender bias (if any) when teams are formed. We use data from the European Science Foundation to estimate if female scientists have the same opportunities as their male colleagues to join a team when applying for funds. To assess gender bias, we construct a control group of scientists with the competencies for being invited to join the team but who do not join. By comparing the proportion of female scientists in the control group with the one in the observed teams, we find a gender bias against female scientists. Exploring heterogeneity across teams, we find that gender bias is less pronounced in teams led by women, junior scientists, and in more recently formed teams. We also observe differences across disciplines.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"35 11","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136233362","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}
Émilien Schultz, Jeremy K Ward, Laëtitia Atlani-Duault
Abstract During the Covid-19 pandemic, many governments have resorted to scientific advisory bodies to aid in public health decision-making. What then has been the public’s perception of those new structures of scientific advice? In this article, we draw on a survey conducted in November 2020 among a representative sample of the French adult population (n = 1,004) designed specifically to explore public perceptions of the dedicated Covid-19 Scientific Council created in March 2020 and of scientific advice in general. After only 8 months, three-quarters of French people said they had heard of it, but only a quarter had a positive opinion about its usefulness. Despite the diversity of perceptions of what scientific advice is and should be, it appeared that scientific advice bodies are perceived as useful mainly by a public already largely supportive of the delegation of the management of public life to the government and public institutions.
{"title":"Public perception of scientific advisory bodies: the case of France’s Covid-19 Scientific Council","authors":"Émilien Schultz, Jeremy K Ward, Laëtitia Atlani-Duault","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad067","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract During the Covid-19 pandemic, many governments have resorted to scientific advisory bodies to aid in public health decision-making. What then has been the public’s perception of those new structures of scientific advice? In this article, we draw on a survey conducted in November 2020 among a representative sample of the French adult population (n = 1,004) designed specifically to explore public perceptions of the dedicated Covid-19 Scientific Council created in March 2020 and of scientific advice in general. After only 8 months, three-quarters of French people said they had heard of it, but only a quarter had a positive opinion about its usefulness. Despite the diversity of perceptions of what scientific advice is and should be, it appeared that scientific advice bodies are perceived as useful mainly by a public already largely supportive of the delegation of the management of public life to the government and public institutions.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"30 11","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134907604","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 Research and Development (R&D) grants are one of the most commonly employed programmes by regional, national, and European governments to promote innovation at the firm level. This study contributes to the existing literature on innovation policy mix by investigating whether combinations of the three funding sources can yield positive effects on various measurements of innovation outcomes. Using a panel of 10,045 Spanish firms from 2004 to 2016 and a flexible conditional difference-in-differences approach, our findings reveal that R&D grants funded by European sources exert the most substantial positive impact on firms’ product and process innovations. Conversely, national funding demonstrates this impact on new-to-market innovations and patent applications. Notably, the positive effect on innovation outcomes is evident only when considering the combination of all three distinct funding schemes and the amalgamation of regional and national R&D grants. These results reject the possibility of substitutive effects among different funding schemes, particularly between regional and national institutions.
{"title":"Multilevel innovation policy mix: impact of regional, national, and European R&D grants","authors":"Enrique Acebo, José-Ángel Miguel-Dávila","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad057","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Research and Development (R&D) grants are one of the most commonly employed programmes by regional, national, and European governments to promote innovation at the firm level. This study contributes to the existing literature on innovation policy mix by investigating whether combinations of the three funding sources can yield positive effects on various measurements of innovation outcomes. Using a panel of 10,045 Spanish firms from 2004 to 2016 and a flexible conditional difference-in-differences approach, our findings reveal that R&D grants funded by European sources exert the most substantial positive impact on firms’ product and process innovations. Conversely, national funding demonstrates this impact on new-to-market innovations and patent applications. Notably, the positive effect on innovation outcomes is evident only when considering the combination of all three distinct funding schemes and the amalgamation of regional and national R&D grants. These results reject the possibility of substitutive effects among different funding schemes, particularly between regional and national institutions.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"26 11","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135218256","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 paper aims to trace how the meaning of ethics in the research and innovation (R&I) sector is discursively and procedurally revised within two consecutive modes of legitimizing public policies in the European Union (EU), namely, good governance and better regulation. The text draws insight from Ernesto Laclau’s work on discursivity, contingency, and hegemony and Chantal Mouffe’s critique of consensual political theories. It shows that with the policy transition from responsible innovation to breakthrough and disruptive innovation, the possibilities to employ ethics in interrogating the ambiguous nature of science and technology advancement become very limited. Ethics is currently construed as a means for unclogging the innovation process and embracing the collective production of risks. The paper demonstrates that the recent emptying of ethics within EU R&I is an expected effect of hegemonization practices and discursive configurations promoting and stabilizing the science–market alliance in science and policy relations.
{"title":"From responsibility to risk: ethics in the Bermuda Triangle of EU research and innovation policy","authors":"Blagovesta I Nikolova","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad066","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper aims to trace how the meaning of ethics in the research and innovation (R&I) sector is discursively and procedurally revised within two consecutive modes of legitimizing public policies in the European Union (EU), namely, good governance and better regulation. The text draws insight from Ernesto Laclau’s work on discursivity, contingency, and hegemony and Chantal Mouffe’s critique of consensual political theories. It shows that with the policy transition from responsible innovation to breakthrough and disruptive innovation, the possibilities to employ ethics in interrogating the ambiguous nature of science and technology advancement become very limited. Ethics is currently construed as a means for unclogging the innovation process and embracing the collective production of risks. The paper demonstrates that the recent emptying of ethics within EU R&I is an expected effect of hegemonization practices and discursive configurations promoting and stabilizing the science–market alliance in science and policy relations.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"2 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135265991","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}
Eduardo Spanó, Rafael Monnerat, Carlos Américo Pacheco, Maria Beatriz Machado Bonacelli
Abstract Recent scholarship emphasizes the need for mission-oriented innovation policies (MOIPs) to tackle grand challenges and the importance of dynamic capabilities in innovation agencies for their implementation. However, the development of dynamic capabilities in innovation agencies, especially in relation to the legal and institutional design of such agencies, remains understudied. We propose a framework integrating research on innovation policy, dynamic capabilities, and legal institutionalism, adapting the three high-order dynamic capabilities—sense, seize, and transform—into nine more concrete low-order capabilities for implementation of MOIPs. We also look at rules and institutional design related to five groups of routines affecting the development of dynamic capabilities: (1) governance, (2) organizational design, (3) budget and finance, (4) public procurement and partnerships, and (5) human resources. We conclude by outlining the analytical and policy implications for (re)designing innovation agencies to implement MOIPs.
{"title":"Legal–institutional design and dynamic capabilities for mission-oriented innovation agencies: a new framework","authors":"Eduardo Spanó, Rafael Monnerat, Carlos Américo Pacheco, Maria Beatriz Machado Bonacelli","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad060","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recent scholarship emphasizes the need for mission-oriented innovation policies (MOIPs) to tackle grand challenges and the importance of dynamic capabilities in innovation agencies for their implementation. However, the development of dynamic capabilities in innovation agencies, especially in relation to the legal and institutional design of such agencies, remains understudied. We propose a framework integrating research on innovation policy, dynamic capabilities, and legal institutionalism, adapting the three high-order dynamic capabilities—sense, seize, and transform—into nine more concrete low-order capabilities for implementation of MOIPs. We also look at rules and institutional design related to five groups of routines affecting the development of dynamic capabilities: (1) governance, (2) organizational design, (3) budget and finance, (4) public procurement and partnerships, and (5) human resources. We conclude by outlining the analytical and policy implications for (re)designing innovation agencies to implement MOIPs.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135219793","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 Many early career researchers (ECRs) currently face long odds of attaining a full-time or tenure-track research position. Populations of graduate and postdoctoral researchers have continually increased, without concomitant increases in tenure-track jobs or stable research careers. The current hypercompetitive academic labor market is societally inefficient and often inhumane to ECRs, commonly characterized by precarious, exploitative, and/or uncertain employment terms. Compounding generational disadvantages endured by many ECRs at work, analysis of worldwide data on housing rental costs reveals that escalating costs of living are an especially acute problem for ECRs, since major research universities tend to be located in expensive cities. The unfavorable plight of today’s ECRs can be partly attributed to the disproportionate zero-sum distribution of resources to senior academics, particularly of the baby boomer generation. The uncertainty, precariousness, and hypercompetitiveness of ECR academic labor markets undermine the quantity and quality of scientific innovations, both in the present and in the future.
{"title":"Gerontocracy, labor market bottlenecks, and generational crises in modern science","authors":"Kyle Siler","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad064","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad064","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Many early career researchers (ECRs) currently face long odds of attaining a full-time or tenure-track research position. Populations of graduate and postdoctoral researchers have continually increased, without concomitant increases in tenure-track jobs or stable research careers. The current hypercompetitive academic labor market is societally inefficient and often inhumane to ECRs, commonly characterized by precarious, exploitative, and/or uncertain employment terms. Compounding generational disadvantages endured by many ECRs at work, analysis of worldwide data on housing rental costs reveals that escalating costs of living are an especially acute problem for ECRs, since major research universities tend to be located in expensive cities. The unfavorable plight of today’s ECRs can be partly attributed to the disproportionate zero-sum distribution of resources to senior academics, particularly of the baby boomer generation. The uncertainty, precariousness, and hypercompetitiveness of ECR academic labor markets undermine the quantity and quality of scientific innovations, both in the present and in the future.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"184 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135728696","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 evolution of science, technology, and innovation Policy (STIP) studies has been marked by the emergence and decline of various intellectual streams regarding the innovation process and the role of government. These streams are known as STIP generations or paradigms and have undergone changes in perspective on innovation across different historical periods. This article aims to provide a clear understanding of how the themes explored in STIP studies have evolved over different STIP generations. To this end, a dataset of the most cited research documents from 1975 to 2022 was studied using a mix of bibliometric and thematic analyses. The result reveals that the STIP literature has undergone three distinct but interrelated dimensions of evolution: the nature and process of innovation have shifted from a simple linear process to an interactive and complex one; the innovation agenda has expanded to include economic, social, and environmental goals; and perspectives on the governance of innovation have shifted from a centralized mode to a participatory and reflexive one. The conceptual framework developed in this research compares STIP generations in terms of the aforementioned three dimensions and shows that recent intellectual generations have a broader perspective than early generations across all three dimensions.
{"title":"Evolution of the STIP literature: discovering the growing role of innovation governance concepts","authors":"Sepehr Ghazinoory, Alireza Ranjbar, Tahereh Sonia Saheb","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad061","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The evolution of science, technology, and innovation Policy (STIP) studies has been marked by the emergence and decline of various intellectual streams regarding the innovation process and the role of government. These streams are known as STIP generations or paradigms and have undergone changes in perspective on innovation across different historical periods. This article aims to provide a clear understanding of how the themes explored in STIP studies have evolved over different STIP generations. To this end, a dataset of the most cited research documents from 1975 to 2022 was studied using a mix of bibliometric and thematic analyses. The result reveals that the STIP literature has undergone three distinct but interrelated dimensions of evolution: the nature and process of innovation have shifted from a simple linear process to an interactive and complex one; the innovation agenda has expanded to include economic, social, and environmental goals; and perspectives on the governance of innovation have shifted from a centralized mode to a participatory and reflexive one. The conceptual framework developed in this research compares STIP generations in terms of the aforementioned three dimensions and shows that recent intellectual generations have a broader perspective than early generations across all three dimensions.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"14 7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136178141","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 Smart Specialization policy, Europe’s place-based innovation policy, is transitioning into an innovation policy for sustainability inspired by academic debate and the urgency of societal challenges. The implications in terms of policy design remain underexplored. This paper studies the policy implications of this transition on the design of monitoring indicators. First, a theoretical framework based on the literature is created. Then, monitoring indicators used in the first policy phase are summarized into categories and themes through inductive and deductive document analysis. The indicators’ strengths and limitations are discussed. By highlighting how monitoring indicators need to adjust to the policy transition, this paper contributes to the literature on innovation policy and Smart Specialization. It also provides guidance to policymakers by developing a framework on indicator design and providing practical recommendations on aspects that need to be considered, captured, and analysed through the indicators.
{"title":"Moving to Smart Specialization for sustainability: the implications on the design of monitoring indicators","authors":"Ghinwa Moujaes","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad056","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Smart Specialization policy, Europe’s place-based innovation policy, is transitioning into an innovation policy for sustainability inspired by academic debate and the urgency of societal challenges. The implications in terms of policy design remain underexplored. This paper studies the policy implications of this transition on the design of monitoring indicators. First, a theoretical framework based on the literature is created. Then, monitoring indicators used in the first policy phase are summarized into categories and themes through inductive and deductive document analysis. The indicators’ strengths and limitations are discussed. By highlighting how monitoring indicators need to adjust to the policy transition, this paper contributes to the literature on innovation policy and Smart Specialization. It also provides guidance to policymakers by developing a framework on indicator design and providing practical recommendations on aspects that need to be considered, captured, and analysed through the indicators.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135967873","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：