第六次新兴话语孵化器征文:激进创新和极端破坏:企业如何从两者的共同进化中茁壮成长?

IF 10.2 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Journal of Supply Chain Management Pub Date : 2022-05-13 DOI:10.1111/jscm.12292
Tingting Yan, Wendy Tate, Mark Pagell
{"title":"第六次新兴话语孵化器征文:激进创新和极端破坏:企业如何从两者的共同进化中茁壮成长?","authors":"Tingting Yan,&nbsp;Wendy Tate,&nbsp;Mark Pagell","doi":"10.1111/jscm.12292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The topic for JSCM's sixth emerging discourse incubator (EDI) is to explore innovation–disruption mutual causality by bridging the supply chain innovation and disruption literatures. To compete today, companies often resort to radical innovations in products, processes, services, profit models, supply chain configurations, and more (Bellamy et al., <span>2020</span>). At the same time, extreme turbulence caused by natural disasters and man-made disruptions pushes firms to build resilient supply chains (Sodhi &amp; Tang, <span>2020</span>). Both radical innovations and extreme disruptions create a high level of uncertainty. Hence, these two seemingly opposite forces drive organizations and individuals to constantly evolve, adapt, and improve in order to survive and thrive (Ketchen &amp; Craighead, <span>2021</span>; Wieland, <span>2020</span>).</p><p>Radical innovations are man-made uncertainty that are usually associated with creating growth opportunities: upward uncertainty. Extreme disruptions could be either man-made or natural uncertainty that are usually associated with large decreases in performance: downward uncertainty. Despite these differences, both affect supply chain management by significantly disrupting routines and creating ambiguity about outcomes. Therefore, radical innovations and extreme disruptions have been well studied by supply chain scholars.</p><p>However, these two streams of research very rarely intersect. The supply chain disruption literature has focused on categorizing disruptions and examining corresponding mitigation strategies (Bode et al., <span>2011</span>; Talluri et al., <span>2013</span>). Among many different types of supply chain disruptions, disruptions originating from suppliers have received extensive attention due to their significant impacts on a firm's operational performance (Tomlin, <span>2006</span>). Interestingly, the supply chain innovation literature has also advocated for the important roles of suppliers in contributing to a buying firm's innovation performance (Kumar et al., <span>2020</span>; Narasimhan &amp; Narayanan, <span>2013</span>). Therefore, suppliers could be a source of disruptions or a resource for innovation. However, these two streams of work have not sufficiently examined how radical innovations and extreme disruptions might coevolve over time.</p><p>High levels of uncertainty, either as a driving force or a consequence, are associated with both radical innovations and extreme disruptions. Hence, the occurrence of one could trigger the emergence of the other. Innovations could either trigger or prevent disruptions. For instance, the development, production, and distribution of new products or services introduce new suppliers, processes, or even business models, thus increasing the likelihood of supply chain disruptions. Customers might not like an innovation, supply might not be sufficient for surprisingly high demand for the innovation, or competitor's innovations or the leakage of intellectual property could trigger an unexpected drop in demand (Ried et al., <span>2021</span>). At the same time, an innovative supply chain might support the development of higher risk management capabilities, which will help prevent disruptions from happening (Kwak et al., <span>2018</span>).</p><p>Equally, disruptions could create opportunities and motivations for firms to innovate. A new environmental policy could disrupt supply chains by banning the sourcing of certain materials, which would then motivate firms to invest in green innovations. The recent COVID-19 pandemic, though devastating at a global scale, also created slack resources such as idle workforces and facilities, which motivated firms to revise business processes, create new products, improvise new business models, or seek new customers for surviving or even thriving during the crisis (Harris et al., <span>2020</span>; Kovács &amp; Falagara Sigala, <span>2021</span>; Wang et al., <span>2020</span>).</p><p>Therefore, research needs to explore the mutual causality between innovations and disruption by bridging the supply chain innovation and disruption literatures. The goal of this EDI is to develop integrated supply chain management theories that help a supply chain to better handle uncertainty, be it upward in terms of innovations, downward in terms of disruptions, or both. One possible starting point could be paradox theory. This theory explains how tensions and potentially conflicting demands are addressed, which could help researchers to explore the relationships between radical innovations and extreme disruptions in a complex network of stakeholders, interdependencies, and systems (Miron-Spektor et al., <span>2018</span>; Wieland, <span>2020</span>). Therefore, it could allow researchers to adopt a unified way of examining a firm's innovation and risk management strategies to identify theory-building/testing opportunities (Azadegan &amp; Dooley, <span>2021</span>). However, other theoretical perspectives such as the complex adaptive system view or dynamic capabilities are appropriate and welcome for this EDI. Finally, the building of new theories is always welcomed in JSCM.</p><p>What we are NOT looking for in this EDI are descriptive studies that simply report firm innovations because of extreme disruptions such as Covid-19 or disruptions resulting from firm innovations, without theorizing the causal relationship between innovation and disruption.</p><p>All submissions are expected to contribute to theory; we envisage that exploring the innovation–disruption mutual causality will offer rich opportunities to elaborate on existing theory or build new theory. At a minimum, by expanding research to consider post-disruption innovations or post-innovation disruptions, all submissions should explicate boundary conditions, laying a foundation for further theoretical development. For any questions, please contact Tingting Yan, <span>[email protected]</span>, Wendy Tate, <span>[email protected]</span>, and Mark Pagell, <span>[email protected]</span>.</p><p>Timeline:</p><p><b>May 2022</b>: Initial call for submissions</p><p><b>January 2023</b>: Invited papers and Co-Editors' introduction of the invited papers is expected to appear online in order to initiate the discourse</p><p><b>January 2023 to January 2024</b>: Submission window for regular submissions</p>","PeriodicalId":51392,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supply Chain Management","volume":"58 4","pages":"3-5"},"PeriodicalIF":10.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jscm.12292","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Call for papers for the sixth emerging discourse incubator: Radical innovations and extreme disruptions: How could a firm thrive from the coevolution of the two?\",\"authors\":\"Tingting Yan,&nbsp;Wendy Tate,&nbsp;Mark Pagell\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jscm.12292\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The topic for JSCM's sixth emerging discourse incubator (EDI) is to explore innovation–disruption mutual causality by bridging the supply chain innovation and disruption literatures. To compete today, companies often resort to radical innovations in products, processes, services, profit models, supply chain configurations, and more (Bellamy et al., <span>2020</span>). At the same time, extreme turbulence caused by natural disasters and man-made disruptions pushes firms to build resilient supply chains (Sodhi &amp; Tang, <span>2020</span>). Both radical innovations and extreme disruptions create a high level of uncertainty. Hence, these two seemingly opposite forces drive organizations and individuals to constantly evolve, adapt, and improve in order to survive and thrive (Ketchen &amp; Craighead, <span>2021</span>; Wieland, <span>2020</span>).</p><p>Radical innovations are man-made uncertainty that are usually associated with creating growth opportunities: upward uncertainty. Extreme disruptions could be either man-made or natural uncertainty that are usually associated with large decreases in performance: downward uncertainty. Despite these differences, both affect supply chain management by significantly disrupting routines and creating ambiguity about outcomes. Therefore, radical innovations and extreme disruptions have been well studied by supply chain scholars.</p><p>However, these two streams of research very rarely intersect. The supply chain disruption literature has focused on categorizing disruptions and examining corresponding mitigation strategies (Bode et al., <span>2011</span>; Talluri et al., <span>2013</span>). Among many different types of supply chain disruptions, disruptions originating from suppliers have received extensive attention due to their significant impacts on a firm's operational performance (Tomlin, <span>2006</span>). Interestingly, the supply chain innovation literature has also advocated for the important roles of suppliers in contributing to a buying firm's innovation performance (Kumar et al., <span>2020</span>; Narasimhan &amp; Narayanan, <span>2013</span>). Therefore, suppliers could be a source of disruptions or a resource for innovation. However, these two streams of work have not sufficiently examined how radical innovations and extreme disruptions might coevolve over time.</p><p>High levels of uncertainty, either as a driving force or a consequence, are associated with both radical innovations and extreme disruptions. Hence, the occurrence of one could trigger the emergence of the other. Innovations could either trigger or prevent disruptions. For instance, the development, production, and distribution of new products or services introduce new suppliers, processes, or even business models, thus increasing the likelihood of supply chain disruptions. Customers might not like an innovation, supply might not be sufficient for surprisingly high demand for the innovation, or competitor's innovations or the leakage of intellectual property could trigger an unexpected drop in demand (Ried et al., <span>2021</span>). At the same time, an innovative supply chain might support the development of higher risk management capabilities, which will help prevent disruptions from happening (Kwak et al., <span>2018</span>).</p><p>Equally, disruptions could create opportunities and motivations for firms to innovate. A new environmental policy could disrupt supply chains by banning the sourcing of certain materials, which would then motivate firms to invest in green innovations. The recent COVID-19 pandemic, though devastating at a global scale, also created slack resources such as idle workforces and facilities, which motivated firms to revise business processes, create new products, improvise new business models, or seek new customers for surviving or even thriving during the crisis (Harris et al., <span>2020</span>; Kovács &amp; Falagara Sigala, <span>2021</span>; Wang et al., <span>2020</span>).</p><p>Therefore, research needs to explore the mutual causality between innovations and disruption by bridging the supply chain innovation and disruption literatures. The goal of this EDI is to develop integrated supply chain management theories that help a supply chain to better handle uncertainty, be it upward in terms of innovations, downward in terms of disruptions, or both. One possible starting point could be paradox theory. This theory explains how tensions and potentially conflicting demands are addressed, which could help researchers to explore the relationships between radical innovations and extreme disruptions in a complex network of stakeholders, interdependencies, and systems (Miron-Spektor et al., <span>2018</span>; Wieland, <span>2020</span>). Therefore, it could allow researchers to adopt a unified way of examining a firm's innovation and risk management strategies to identify theory-building/testing opportunities (Azadegan &amp; Dooley, <span>2021</span>). However, other theoretical perspectives such as the complex adaptive system view or dynamic capabilities are appropriate and welcome for this EDI. Finally, the building of new theories is always welcomed in JSCM.</p><p>What we are NOT looking for in this EDI are descriptive studies that simply report firm innovations because of extreme disruptions such as Covid-19 or disruptions resulting from firm innovations, without theorizing the causal relationship between innovation and disruption.</p><p>All submissions are expected to contribute to theory; we envisage that exploring the innovation–disruption mutual causality will offer rich opportunities to elaborate on existing theory or build new theory. At a minimum, by expanding research to consider post-disruption innovations or post-innovation disruptions, all submissions should explicate boundary conditions, laying a foundation for further theoretical development. For any questions, please contact Tingting Yan, <span>[email protected]</span>, Wendy Tate, <span>[email protected]</span>, and Mark Pagell, <span>[email protected]</span>.</p><p>Timeline:</p><p><b>May 2022</b>: Initial call for submissions</p><p><b>January 2023</b>: Invited papers and Co-Editors' introduction of the invited papers is expected to appear online in order to initiate the discourse</p><p><b>January 2023 to January 2024</b>: Submission window for regular submissions</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51392,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Supply Chain Management\",\"volume\":\"58 4\",\"pages\":\"3-5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jscm.12292\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Supply Chain Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12292\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Supply Chain Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12292","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

JSCM第六个新兴话语孵化器(EDI)的主题是通过连接供应链创新和破坏文献来探索创新-破坏的相互因果关系。如今,为了竞争,企业往往在产品、流程、服务、盈利模式、供应链配置等方面采取激进创新(Bellamy et al., 2020)。与此同时,自然灾害和人为干扰造成的极端动荡促使企业建立有弹性的供应链(Sodhi &唐,2020年)。激进的创新和极端的破坏都造成了高度的不确定性。因此,这两种看似相反的力量驱使组织和个人不断进化、适应和改进,以生存和发展(Ketchen &克雷格亥,2021;维兰德,2020)。激进创新是人为的不确定性,通常与创造增长机会有关:向上的不确定性。极端的破坏可能是人为的,也可能是自然的不确定性,通常与业绩的大幅下降有关:向下的不确定性。尽管存在这些差异,但两者都通过显著扰乱常规和造成结果模糊来影响供应链管理。因此,供应链学者对激进创新和极端破坏进行了深入的研究。然而,这两种研究很少相交。供应链中断文献侧重于对中断进行分类并审查相应的缓解战略(Bode等人,2011年;Talluri et al., 2013)。在许多不同类型的供应链中断中,源自供应商的中断因其对公司运营绩效的重大影响而受到广泛关注(Tomlin, 2006)。有趣的是,供应链创新文献也主张供应商在促进采购企业创新绩效方面发挥重要作用(Kumar et al., 2020;纳史木汗,Narayanan, 2013)。因此,供应商可以是中断的来源,也可以是创新的资源。然而,这两种工作并没有充分研究激进创新和极端破坏如何随着时间的推移共同发展。高度的不确定性,无论是作为驱动力还是结果,都与激进的创新和极端的破坏有关。因此,其中一种的出现可能会引发另一种的出现。创新可能引发或阻止颠覆。例如,新产品或服务的开发、生产和分销引入了新的供应商、流程,甚至商业模式,从而增加了供应链中断的可能性。客户可能不喜欢创新,供应可能不足以满足对创新的惊人高需求,或者竞争对手的创新或知识产权的泄漏可能引发需求的意外下降(Ried等人,2021)。与此同时,创新的供应链可能会支持更高风险管理能力的发展,这将有助于防止中断的发生(Kwak等人,2018)。同样,颠覆也可以为企业创新创造机会和动力。一项新的环境政策可能会通过禁止某些材料的采购来扰乱供应链,这将激励企业投资于绿色创新。最近的COVID-19大流行虽然在全球范围内具有破坏性,但也造成了闲置的劳动力和设施等闲置资源,这促使企业修改业务流程,创造新产品,临时制定新的商业模式,或寻求新客户,以便在危机期间生存甚至繁荣(Harris等人,2020;科瓦奇,Falagara Sigala, 2021;Wang et al., 2020)。因此,研究需要通过连接供应链创新与中断的文献来探索创新与中断之间的相互因果关系。此EDI的目标是开发集成的供应链管理理论,以帮助供应链更好地处理不确定性,无论是向上的创新,向下的中断,还是两者兼而有之。一个可能的出发点是悖论理论。这一理论解释了如何解决紧张关系和潜在的冲突需求,这可以帮助研究人员探索利益相关者、相互依赖关系和系统组成的复杂网络中激进创新与极端破坏之间的关系(Miron-Spektor等人,2018;维兰德,2020)。因此,它可以允许研究人员采用统一的方式来检查公司的创新和风险管理策略,以确定理论建立/测试的机会(Azadegan &杜利,2021)。然而,其他理论观点,如复杂自适应系统观点或动态能力,对于这种EDI来说是合适的,也是受欢迎的。最后,JSCM总是欢迎新理论的建立。 我们在这个EDI中寻找的不是描述性研究,这些研究仅仅报告了由于极端破坏(如Covid-19)或公司创新造成的破坏而进行的公司创新,而没有将创新与破坏之间的因果关系理论化。所有提交的作品都应该对理论有贡献;我们设想,探索创新-破坏的相互因果关系将为阐述现有理论或建立新理论提供丰富的机会。至少,通过扩大研究以考虑后颠覆性创新或后创新中断,所有提交的材料都应阐明边界条件,为进一步的理论发展奠定基础。如有任何问题,请联系闫婷婷,[email protected], Wendy Tate, [email protected]和Mark Pagell, [email protected]。2023年1月:受邀论文和共同编辑对受邀论文的介绍预计将出现在网上,以启动论文2023年1月至2024年1月:定期提交的提交窗口
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Call for papers for the sixth emerging discourse incubator: Radical innovations and extreme disruptions: How could a firm thrive from the coevolution of the two?

The topic for JSCM's sixth emerging discourse incubator (EDI) is to explore innovation–disruption mutual causality by bridging the supply chain innovation and disruption literatures. To compete today, companies often resort to radical innovations in products, processes, services, profit models, supply chain configurations, and more (Bellamy et al., 2020). At the same time, extreme turbulence caused by natural disasters and man-made disruptions pushes firms to build resilient supply chains (Sodhi & Tang, 2020). Both radical innovations and extreme disruptions create a high level of uncertainty. Hence, these two seemingly opposite forces drive organizations and individuals to constantly evolve, adapt, and improve in order to survive and thrive (Ketchen & Craighead, 2021; Wieland, 2020).

Radical innovations are man-made uncertainty that are usually associated with creating growth opportunities: upward uncertainty. Extreme disruptions could be either man-made or natural uncertainty that are usually associated with large decreases in performance: downward uncertainty. Despite these differences, both affect supply chain management by significantly disrupting routines and creating ambiguity about outcomes. Therefore, radical innovations and extreme disruptions have been well studied by supply chain scholars.

However, these two streams of research very rarely intersect. The supply chain disruption literature has focused on categorizing disruptions and examining corresponding mitigation strategies (Bode et al., 2011; Talluri et al., 2013). Among many different types of supply chain disruptions, disruptions originating from suppliers have received extensive attention due to their significant impacts on a firm's operational performance (Tomlin, 2006). Interestingly, the supply chain innovation literature has also advocated for the important roles of suppliers in contributing to a buying firm's innovation performance (Kumar et al., 2020; Narasimhan & Narayanan, 2013). Therefore, suppliers could be a source of disruptions or a resource for innovation. However, these two streams of work have not sufficiently examined how radical innovations and extreme disruptions might coevolve over time.

High levels of uncertainty, either as a driving force or a consequence, are associated with both radical innovations and extreme disruptions. Hence, the occurrence of one could trigger the emergence of the other. Innovations could either trigger or prevent disruptions. For instance, the development, production, and distribution of new products or services introduce new suppliers, processes, or even business models, thus increasing the likelihood of supply chain disruptions. Customers might not like an innovation, supply might not be sufficient for surprisingly high demand for the innovation, or competitor's innovations or the leakage of intellectual property could trigger an unexpected drop in demand (Ried et al., 2021). At the same time, an innovative supply chain might support the development of higher risk management capabilities, which will help prevent disruptions from happening (Kwak et al., 2018).

Equally, disruptions could create opportunities and motivations for firms to innovate. A new environmental policy could disrupt supply chains by banning the sourcing of certain materials, which would then motivate firms to invest in green innovations. The recent COVID-19 pandemic, though devastating at a global scale, also created slack resources such as idle workforces and facilities, which motivated firms to revise business processes, create new products, improvise new business models, or seek new customers for surviving or even thriving during the crisis (Harris et al., 2020; Kovács & Falagara Sigala, 2021; Wang et al., 2020).

Therefore, research needs to explore the mutual causality between innovations and disruption by bridging the supply chain innovation and disruption literatures. The goal of this EDI is to develop integrated supply chain management theories that help a supply chain to better handle uncertainty, be it upward in terms of innovations, downward in terms of disruptions, or both. One possible starting point could be paradox theory. This theory explains how tensions and potentially conflicting demands are addressed, which could help researchers to explore the relationships between radical innovations and extreme disruptions in a complex network of stakeholders, interdependencies, and systems (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018; Wieland, 2020). Therefore, it could allow researchers to adopt a unified way of examining a firm's innovation and risk management strategies to identify theory-building/testing opportunities (Azadegan & Dooley, 2021). However, other theoretical perspectives such as the complex adaptive system view or dynamic capabilities are appropriate and welcome for this EDI. Finally, the building of new theories is always welcomed in JSCM.

What we are NOT looking for in this EDI are descriptive studies that simply report firm innovations because of extreme disruptions such as Covid-19 or disruptions resulting from firm innovations, without theorizing the causal relationship between innovation and disruption.

All submissions are expected to contribute to theory; we envisage that exploring the innovation–disruption mutual causality will offer rich opportunities to elaborate on existing theory or build new theory. At a minimum, by expanding research to consider post-disruption innovations or post-innovation disruptions, all submissions should explicate boundary conditions, laying a foundation for further theoretical development. For any questions, please contact Tingting Yan, [email protected], Wendy Tate, [email protected], and Mark Pagell, [email protected].

Timeline:

May 2022: Initial call for submissions

January 2023: Invited papers and Co-Editors' introduction of the invited papers is expected to appear online in order to initiate the discourse

January 2023 to January 2024: Submission window for regular submissions

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
6.60%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: ournal of Supply Chain Management Mission: The mission of the Journal of Supply Chain Management (JSCM) is to be the premier choice among supply chain management scholars from various disciplines. It aims to attract high-quality, impactful behavioral research that focuses on theory building and employs rigorous empirical methodologies. Article Requirements: An article published in JSCM must make a significant contribution to supply chain management theory. This contribution can be achieved through either an inductive, theory-building process or a deductive, theory-testing approach. This contribution may manifest in various ways, such as falsification of conventional understanding, theory-building through conceptual development, inductive or qualitative research, initial empirical testing of a theory, theoretically-based meta-analysis, or constructive replication that clarifies the boundaries or range of a theory. Theoretical Contribution: Manuscripts should explicitly convey the theoretical contribution relative to the existing supply chain management literature, and when appropriate, to the literature outside of supply chain management (e.g., management theory, psychology, economics). Empirical Contribution: Manuscripts published in JSCM must also provide strong empirical contributions. While conceptual manuscripts are welcomed, they must significantly advance theory in the field of supply chain management and be firmly grounded in existing theory and relevant literature. For empirical manuscripts, authors must adequately assess validity, which is essential for empirical research, whether quantitative or qualitative.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Process Research Methods for Studying Supply Chains and Their Management Rethinking Supply Chain Management in a Post-Growth Era Unraveling the Urban Ecosystem: An Ethnographic Study of Logistics Service Providers “I Am Because We Are”: The Role of Sub-Saharan Africa's Collectivist Culture in Achieving Traceability and Global Supply Chain Resilience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1