Pub Date : 2022-11-07DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-052627
Derek R. Avery, Alison V Hall, McKenzie Preston, Enrica N. Ruggs, Elaine R. Washington
It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the workplace impact of race from the organizational psychology and organizational behavior literature. Topical coverage is spotty and the findings are fragmented, with little existing theory to orient, integrate, and reconcile them. Consequently, it is unsurprising that public opinion is highly divergent about the influence of race at work, and practitioners are left largely unassisted in determining evidence-based approaches to leveraging this form of difference among their personnel. To fill this void, we review the relevant findings through the lens of organizational justice to help clarify the impact of race on organizational experiences. Our findings suggest that justice indeed varies as a function of race, the magnitude of differences depends on the type of justice, and there are several potentially fruitful areas for additional inquiry. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 10 is January 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Is Justice Colorblind? A Review of Workplace Racioethnic Differences Through the Lens of Organizational Justice","authors":"Derek R. Avery, Alison V Hall, McKenzie Preston, Enrica N. Ruggs, Elaine R. Washington","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-052627","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-052627","url":null,"abstract":"It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the workplace impact of race from the organizational psychology and organizational behavior literature. Topical coverage is spotty and the findings are fragmented, with little existing theory to orient, integrate, and reconcile them. Consequently, it is unsurprising that public opinion is highly divergent about the influence of race at work, and practitioners are left largely unassisted in determining evidence-based approaches to leveraging this form of difference among their personnel. To fill this void, we review the relevant findings through the lens of organizational justice to help clarify the impact of race on organizational experiences. Our findings suggest that justice indeed varies as a function of race, the magnitude of differences depends on the type of justice, and there are several potentially fruitful areas for additional inquiry. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 10 is January 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2022-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47499327","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-04DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-055646
M. Frese, Michael M. Gielnik
We review the research on the psychology of entrepreneurship of the last decade. We focus on two key topics in entrepreneurship research: action and process. Combining action and process in a model of the psychology of entrepreneurship, we present the action theory process model of entrepreneurship and use it as a guiding framework for the review. We discuss theories of action, such as effectuation/causation, bricolage, theory of planned behavior, and action theory. Furthermore, we adopt a process perspective to discuss antecedents of actions in terms of cognition, motivation, and emotion and how they develop during the entrepreneurial process. The process perspective considers recursive relationships and dynamic changes in actions and their antecedents over time. We conclude that the action theory process model is a useful starting point to explain the psychological dynamics of entrepreneurship. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 10 is January 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"The Psychology of Entrepreneurship: Action and Process","authors":"M. Frese, Michael M. Gielnik","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-055646","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-055646","url":null,"abstract":"We review the research on the psychology of entrepreneurship of the last decade. We focus on two key topics in entrepreneurship research: action and process. Combining action and process in a model of the psychology of entrepreneurship, we present the action theory process model of entrepreneurship and use it as a guiding framework for the review. We discuss theories of action, such as effectuation/causation, bricolage, theory of planned behavior, and action theory. Furthermore, we adopt a process perspective to discuss antecedents of actions in terms of cognition, motivation, and emotion and how they develop during the entrepreneurial process. The process perspective considers recursive relationships and dynamic changes in actions and their antecedents over time. We conclude that the action theory process model is a useful starting point to explain the psychological dynamics of entrepreneurship. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 10 is January 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2022-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45373617","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-31DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-052946
M. Zickar, Melissa G. Keith
Technology has changed the way that organizational researchers obtain participants for their research studies. Although technology has facilitated the collection of large quantities of data through online platforms, it has also highlighted potential data quality issues for many of our samples. In this article, we review different sampling techniques, including convenience, purposive, probability-based, and snowball sampling. We highlight strengths and weaknesses of each approach to help organizational researchers choose the most appropriate sampling techniques for their research questions. We identify best practices that researchers can use to improve the quality of their samples, including reviewing screening techniques to increase the quality of online sampling. Finally, as part of our review we examined the sampling procedures of all empirical research articles published in Journal of Applied Psychology in the past 5 years, and we use observations from these results to make conclusions about the lack of methodological and sample diversity in organizational research, the overreliance on a few sampling techniques, the need to report key aspects of sampling, and concerns about participant quality. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 10 is January 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Innovations in Sampling: Improving the Appropriateness and Quality of Samples in Organizational Research","authors":"M. Zickar, Melissa G. Keith","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-052946","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-052946","url":null,"abstract":"Technology has changed the way that organizational researchers obtain participants for their research studies. Although technology has facilitated the collection of large quantities of data through online platforms, it has also highlighted potential data quality issues for many of our samples. In this article, we review different sampling techniques, including convenience, purposive, probability-based, and snowball sampling. We highlight strengths and weaknesses of each approach to help organizational researchers choose the most appropriate sampling techniques for their research questions. We identify best practices that researchers can use to improve the quality of their samples, including reviewing screening techniques to increase the quality of online sampling. Finally, as part of our review we examined the sampling procedures of all empirical research articles published in Journal of Applied Psychology in the past 5 years, and we use observations from these results to make conclusions about the lack of methodological and sample diversity in organizational research, the overreliance on a few sampling techniques, the need to report key aspects of sampling, and concerns about participant quality. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 10 is January 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44003187","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-06DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-054654
E. W. Morrison
Over the past decade, hundreds of studies have been published on employee voice and silence. In this review, I summarize that body of work, with an emphasis on the progress that has been made in our understanding of when and why employees choose to speak up or remain silent, as well as the individual and organizational implications of these choices. I identify underexplored issues, limitations in how voice has been conceptualized and studied, and promising avenues for future research. Although there has been notable progress in our knowledge of voice and silence, numerous key questions remain, and there are opportunities for the literature on voice to adopt a broader view of that construct. One of the objectives of this review is to motivate and guide research that will address those questions and explore that broader view. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 10 is January 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Employee Voice and Silence: Taking Stock a Decade Later","authors":"E. W. Morrison","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-054654","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-054654","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past decade, hundreds of studies have been published on employee voice and silence. In this review, I summarize that body of work, with an emphasis on the progress that has been made in our understanding of when and why employees choose to speak up or remain silent, as well as the individual and organizational implications of these choices. I identify underexplored issues, limitations in how voice has been conceptualized and studied, and promising avenues for future research. Although there has been notable progress in our knowledge of voice and silence, numerous key questions remain, and there are opportunities for the literature on voice to adopt a broader view of that construct. One of the objectives of this review is to motivate and guide research that will address those questions and explore that broader view. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 10 is January 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2022-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41912676","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-21DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091040
U. Stephan
How can culture help explain persistent cross-country differences in innovation and entrepreneurship? This overview of cross-cultural innovation/entrepreneurship research draws on the most prominent cultural frameworks (by Hofstede, Schwartz, GLOBE, and Gelfand and colleagues). After outlining similarities and differences between these frameworks, I discuss theoretical perspectives of how culture shapes innovation/entrepreneurship (culture fit, culture misfit, cultural social support, and culture as a boundary condition) and give an overview of empirical research on culture and innovation/entrepreneurship. I conclude by outlining opportunities and best practices for future research and practical implications.
{"title":"Cross-Cultural Innovation and Entrepreneurship","authors":"U. Stephan","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091040","url":null,"abstract":"How can culture help explain persistent cross-country differences in innovation and entrepreneurship? This overview of cross-cultural innovation/entrepreneurship research draws on the most prominent cultural frameworks (by Hofstede, Schwartz, GLOBE, and Gelfand and colleagues). After outlining similarities and differences between these frameworks, I discuss theoretical perspectives of how culture shapes innovation/entrepreneurship (culture fit, culture misfit, cultural social support, and culture as a boundary condition) and give an overview of empirical research on culture and innovation/entrepreneurship. I conclude by outlining opportunities and best practices for future research and practical implications.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43505105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-21DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-090506
G. Gigerenzer, J. Reb, S. Luan
Heuristics are fast, frugal, and accurate strategies that enable rather than limit decision making under uncertainty. Uncertainty, as opposed to calculable risk, is characteristic of most organizational contexts. We review existing research and offer a descriptive and prescriptive theoretical framework to integrate the current patchwork of heuristics scattered across various areas of organizational studies. Research on the adaptive toolbox is descriptive, identifying the repertoire of heuristics on which individuals, teams, and organizations rely. Research on ecological rationality is prescriptive, specifying the conditions under which a given heuristic performs well, that is, when it is smart. Our review finds a relatively small but rapidly developing field. We identify promising future research directions, including research on how culture shapes the use of heuristics and how heuristics shape organizational culture. We also outline an educational program for managers and leaders that follows the general approach of “Don't avoid heuristics—learn how to use them.”
{"title":"Smart Heuristics for Individuals, Teams, and Organizations","authors":"G. Gigerenzer, J. Reb, S. Luan","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-090506","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-090506","url":null,"abstract":"Heuristics are fast, frugal, and accurate strategies that enable rather than limit decision making under uncertainty. Uncertainty, as opposed to calculable risk, is characteristic of most organizational contexts. We review existing research and offer a descriptive and prescriptive theoretical framework to integrate the current patchwork of heuristics scattered across various areas of organizational studies. Research on the adaptive toolbox is descriptive, identifying the repertoire of heuristics on which individuals, teams, and organizations rely. Research on ecological rationality is prescriptive, specifying the conditions under which a given heuristic performs well, that is, when it is smart. Our review finds a relatively small but rapidly developing field. We identify promising future research directions, including research on how culture shapes the use of heuristics and how heuristics shape organizational culture. We also outline an educational program for managers and leaders that follows the general approach of “Don't avoid heuristics—learn how to use them.”","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44822255","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-16DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-055523
H. Bowles, Bobbi Thomason, Inmaculada Macias-Alonso
A person's gender is not a reliable predictor of their negotiation behavior or outcomes, because the degree and character of gender dynamics in negotiation vary across situations. Systematic effects of gender on negotiation are best predicted by situational characteristics that cue gendered behavior or increase reliance on gendered standards for agreement. In this review, we illuminate two levers that heighten or constrain the potential for gender effects in organizational negotiations: ( a) the salience and relevance of gender within the negotiating context and ( b) the degree of ambiguity (i.e., lack of objective standards or information) with regard to what is negotiable, how to negotiate, or who the parties are as negotiators. In our summary, we review practical implications of this research for organizational leaders and individuals who are motivated to reduce gender-based inequities in negotiation outcomes. In conclusion, we suggest future directions for research on gender in organizational negotiations. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"When Gender Matters in Organizational Negotiations","authors":"H. Bowles, Bobbi Thomason, Inmaculada Macias-Alonso","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-055523","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-055523","url":null,"abstract":"A person's gender is not a reliable predictor of their negotiation behavior or outcomes, because the degree and character of gender dynamics in negotiation vary across situations. Systematic effects of gender on negotiation are best predicted by situational characteristics that cue gendered behavior or increase reliance on gendered standards for agreement. In this review, we illuminate two levers that heighten or constrain the potential for gender effects in organizational negotiations: ( a) the salience and relevance of gender within the negotiating context and ( b) the degree of ambiguity (i.e., lack of objective standards or information) with regard to what is negotiable, how to negotiate, or who the parties are as negotiators. In our summary, we review practical implications of this research for organizational leaders and individuals who are motivated to reduce gender-based inequities in negotiation outcomes. In conclusion, we suggest future directions for research on gender in organizational negotiations. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41357352","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-10DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091227
A. Carton
I review the empirical literature on leadership, focusing on papers published since 2010. To do so, I introduce a framework composed of two features: whether theories ( a) involve the study of leaders or leading (i.e., the person versus the process) and ( b) conceptualize leadership as a cause or a consequence (i.e., an independent versus dependent variable). This framework can enable future research to accumulate in a more programmatic fashion and help scholars determine where their own studies are located within the landscape of leadership research. I end the review by critically evaluating existing work, arguing that the most popular subcategory of leadership research—lumped conceptualizations of leading, in which scholars examine multiple leader behaviors within a single construct—has significant limitations and may need to be replaced by a greater focus on split conceptualizations of leading, wherein scholars isolate single leader behaviors. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"The Science of Leadership: A Theoretical Model and Research Agenda","authors":"A. Carton","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091227","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091227","url":null,"abstract":"I review the empirical literature on leadership, focusing on papers published since 2010. To do so, I introduce a framework composed of two features: whether theories ( a) involve the study of leaders or leading (i.e., the person versus the process) and ( b) conceptualize leadership as a cause or a consequence (i.e., an independent versus dependent variable). This framework can enable future research to accumulate in a more programmatic fashion and help scholars determine where their own studies are located within the landscape of leadership research. I end the review by critically evaluating existing work, arguing that the most popular subcategory of leadership research—lumped conceptualizations of leading, in which scholars examine multiple leader behaviors within a single construct—has significant limitations and may need to be replaced by a greater focus on split conceptualizations of leading, wherein scholars isolate single leader behaviors. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47981784","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-08DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-083120
Christopher D. Nye
Recent research has re-emphasized the importance of vocational interests for understanding workplace attitudes and behavior. As a result, there is a renewed interest in the assessment of vocational interests in organizations. Numerous interest assessments have been developed over the past century, and they are now administered to millions of people throughout the world. Nevertheless, there is still work to be done, particularly as interest assessments are increasingly being used in organizational settings. This article reviews developments in interest assessments and discusses the implications of their use for both research and practice. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of examining vocational interests in organizational contexts and proposes future research directions. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Assessing Interests in the Twenty-First-Century Workforce: Building on a Century of Interest Measurement","authors":"Christopher D. Nye","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-083120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-083120","url":null,"abstract":"Recent research has re-emphasized the importance of vocational interests for understanding workplace attitudes and behavior. As a result, there is a renewed interest in the assessment of vocational interests in organizations. Numerous interest assessments have been developed over the past century, and they are now administered to millions of people throughout the world. Nevertheless, there is still work to be done, particularly as interest assessments are increasingly being used in organizational settings. This article reviews developments in interest assessments and discusses the implications of their use for both research and practice. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of examining vocational interests in organizational contexts and proposes future research directions. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42016500","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"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：