注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

HE Utopia:大学教师发展博客

激情、分享、成长、引领、合作、创新

 
 
 

日志

 
 

给评审者的12则建议  

2011-08-27 15:34:43|  分类: 高等教育 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

The Academic Observer

Twelve Tips for Reviewers

An occasional column by Henry L. Roediger, III

学术观察员

给评审者的12则建议

亨利·L.勒迪格的临时专栏,III

Many critical skills needed for becoming a successful academic are typically not taught in graduate school, at least not in any formal way. One of these is how to review journal articles. Few students coming out of graduate school have much experience reviewing papers, and yet, at least for those students continuing on in research, reviewing is a skill that will be increasingly critical as their careers develop. In fact, being a good reviewer can greatly help a career. If a young psychologist becomes known as an excellent reviewer, he or she may be selected as consulting editor, then associate editor, and then perhaps the primary editor of a journal.

要成为一个成功的学者所需要的批评技巧并不是在研究生院里学到的,甚至不是通过正式途径获得的。其中一项是如何去评审杂志的文章。很少有学生在离开研究生院时就具有评审文章的经历,然而,至少对要继续从事研究的学生来说,评审技巧随着生涯的发展会变得越来越重要。如果一名青年心理学者被认为是一名优秀的评审专家,那么他或她也许会被选为顾问编辑,然后是副主编,甚至有可能成为杂志的主编。

How do people learn to review? I suspect most newly minted PhDs learn to review papers in the same way that the children in Albert Bandura’s famous 1960s studies learned aggressive responses, which is to say, by imitation. Just as children who watched one boy smack a BoBo doll with a bat (and received praise for doing so) would tend to do the same when it was their turn, so do young academics learn to review. Unfortunately, the analogy with the BoBo doll experiment is apt in another way: Because reviews are often highly negative, the new researcher implicitly learns from the negative reviews received on his or her own submitted papers that reviews are supposed to be negative. It is as if the implicit message is: “A reviewer’s job is to criticize the manuscript. Find any faults in the logic, method, results, and conclusions that the paper might have and then communicate these to the editor.” Hence, the cycle of negative reviews is perpetuated across academic generations.

怎么样学会评审呢?我猜测绝大多数的新科博士学习评审文章是与20世纪60年代班杜拉的著名研究[1]中的儿童攻击性行为的习得一样是通过模仿而获得的。当儿童观察到一个小男孩用球拍打波波玩偶(同时给予表扬),当轮到他时也会倾向于做同样的事,青年学者学习评审也是如此。不幸的是,通过从消极方面与波波玩偶实验进行类比也是恰当的:因为评审意见通常是非常消极的,新研究人员从收到的他或她自己提交的论文的消极评论中得到暗示性习得,把评审总是想象成负面的。这似乎给了我们暗示:评审人员的工作就是对稿件进行批评。发现论文中可能有的逻辑、方法、结果和结论上的错误并传递给编辑。因此,如此循环,消极评审在学术界代代相传。

In 2002, Robert Sternberg wrote a column in the Observer titled “On civility in reviewing,” decrying the often hostile nature of reviews in psychology. This led him to edit a collection of essays on different types of reviewing and how to go about them. The book Reviewing Scientific Works in Psychology (American Psychological Association, 2006) is excellent, and I urge readers to purchase it (although for truth-in-advertising purposes, I should note that I wrote one of the chapters, on reviewing chapters in edited books). The purpose of this column is not to replace that book but simply to provide some guidelines for reviewing papers that may be helpful to some, especially younger, readers. Abraham Tesser and Leonard Martin have a fine chapter in Sternberg’s book that provides further thoughts on reviewing articles for journals.

2002年,斯腾伯格在观察者上开了题为“评审文明”一个专栏,心理学上评审的本质是通常是一种怀有敌意的责难。这使他有机会编辑了关于不同评审类型和如何处理的一本论文集。这本名为《心理学里的科学工作评审》(美国心理学会,2006年)书籍很优秀,我希望读者能够购买(虽然确有做广告的目的,需要指出的是我写了其中关于评审章节中的一章)。这个专栏的目的并不是要替代这册书,而是希望能够为大家特别是年轻人和读者提供一些关于评审文章的指导并有所帮助。泰瑟和马丁在斯腾伯格的书里写了很好的一个章节,为我们提供了关于评审杂志文章的一些深入思考。

1. Know your mission. A reviewer’s job is to evaluate a submitted article, not (necessarily) to criticize it and certainly not to trash it. The editor is seeking your advice on whether or not to publish the paper, so you should point out both strengths and weaknesses of the paper and come to some balanced conclusion. Keep the big picture in mind: Is the problem addressed an important one in the context of the field? Does the current paper push knowledge forward in a substantive way? The question at issue is not “does this paper answer all the questions about this particular problem?” because the answer to that question is always “no.” The critical issue is whether the paper under review advances knowledge on the issue under consideration enough to be published. Yes, this requires human judgment, a notoriously fallible quality, but that is why there are two or three reviewers plus an editor. (Sometimes there are even more reviewers — too many, in fact — but I’ll save that problem for another column.) Always keep in mind that, as a reviewer, you are just one piece in the puzzle. You offer advice to the editor, and the editor decides on the publishability of the paper.

1. 知道自己的任务。评审者的工作是评价投稿文章,并非(必然地)批判它和将之视为没有价值的东西。编辑的目的是寻求文章能否发表的建议,所以你应该指出文章的优点和缺点并得出相对平衡的结论。我们要在更宏观的层面来考虑:文章的所阐述的问题是不是在其领域里重要问题之一?当前的文章是否实质性地推动了知识的前进?我们并不是要解决“这篇文章回答了这个主题的所有方方面面的问题了吗”这样的问题,因为其答案永远是否定的。关键问题是评审的文章是否促进知识的增长,并以此来考虑文章是否能够发表。是的,这需要人们的判断——一种众周所知的易犯错的品质,这恰恰是为什么需要两个或三个评审者再加上一个编辑的原因。(有的时候甚至需要更多的评审者太多的评审者,实际上但我将在另外的专栏予以讨论。)作为一个评审者,要永远记住你仅仅是拼图中的一块。你给编辑提供建议,然后由编辑来决定文章能否发表。

2. Be speedy. Your reviews should be timely. Don’t wait until the last minute to begin the review (or worse, after you get a reminder that it is overdue). If you want to establish a reputation as a good reviewer, be prompt and get your review in ahead of schedule. When I was editing the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, I tried a young reviewer just out of graduate school. To my surprise, he returned the review in five days and it was excellent — fair, balanced, pithy, and wise. Just then, I had another paper that a reviewer had returned after holding it for a few weeks, pleading lack of time. I sent it to the same young reviewer and got another immediate turnaround (and this was in the days before e-mail made delivery of papers and the return of reviews instantaneous). I quickly added the person to the editorial board, having suddenly discovered that I couldn’t live without him. When you are young and new to the field, you might not be asked to review much. However, if you are a good reviewer, you may be discovered and suddenly you will have an overflowing reviewing pile. Don’t agree to review a paper unless you think you can do so in a timely fashion.

2. 要快速完成。评审要及时。不要等到最后一刻才开始评审(更糟糕的是,在收到过期提醒时才动手)。如果你想建立作为一个评审者的良好声誉,请迅速地在预定时间前完成评审。当我在编辑《实验心理学杂志:学习、记忆和认知》时,对一位刚刚从研究生学院毕业的青年评审者进行了测试。令我惊奇的是,他在五天后将评审结果反馈给我,而且做得非常好——公平、均衡、简练和智慧。恰好在那时,我有一篇论文是另外一位评审者在其手头放了好几个星期后以没有时间为由返还给我的。我将这篇论文也发给那位年轻的评审者并很快得到了反馈(仅在几天之内用电邮发出论文,同时寄出评审结果)。我很快将这具年轻人加入我的编辑委员会,并很快发现我已经离不开他了。当你在某个领域里还是新人时,被邀请评审文章的机会可能不会太多。然而,如果你是一个优秀的评审者,你将会很快被发现,并且会有一大堆的文章等着你去审。除非你认为能及时完成任务,否则不要轻易应接评审任务。

3. Read carefully. Yes, you need to be speedy, but not at the expense of accuracy. Read the paper carefully, and go back over parts that are not clear. This advice should go without saying, but I am amazed at how often reviewers will raise a point that is based on a misreading of the paper or, worse yet, raise a point as if it were new when, in fact, the point was addressed and rebutted in the paper. I confess to having made this mistake myself on occasion, and having the mistakes pointed out by the editor or other reviewers has made me more careful.

3. 仔细阅读。是的,你需要迅速地完成任务,但不能以牺牲精确性为代价。仔细阅读文章,反复阅读不是太明确的部分。这条建议应该不用说,但我惊讶于评审者常常会出现对论文误解的观点,更糟糕的是,提出的观点似乎是新的,但实际上,正是论文中所批驳的。我承认有时我自己也会犯这样的错误,编辑或其他评审者指出这样的错误使我更加谨慎。

4. Say positive things in your review. Many reviews I read (both those of my papers and those of others’ papers when I am one of the companion reviewers) have nary a kind word. Rather, the review consists of an unrelenting series of criticisms that might leave the author ready to hang him- or herself by the end of the review. (Sometimes I will even see editors apologize in the action letter for the tone of a review.) Usually, even the worst paper has some redeeming features — the issue addressed is interesting, the literature review is excellent, or whatever. (Don’t push the compliments, though. No need to comment on the excellent choice of typography — “one hardly ever sees Franklin Gothic used in a manuscript” — if that is the only good thing you can think to say.) In short, even if you are recommending that the paper not be published for one reason or another, try to include some kind words.

4. 在你的评审中说一些积极的东西。我所读的很多评语(包括自己文章的评语以及我在当合作评审者时看到的别人文章的评语)几乎没有宽容的言辞。一定程度上,包含一系列毫不留情批评的评审,可能会导致作者在评审结束时恨不得要上吊。(有时我甚至会看到编辑们会因为这种类型的评审在给作者的复信中致谦。)通常,即使是最臭的论文也有其可取之处——如阐述的问题是有趣的、文献综述做得很好等等。(尽管,没人逼迫你用褒扬之词。也不需要对排版的好坏作评论“几乎很少能够看到富兰克林·哥特式的手稿”——尽管这是你所想说的仅有的好事。)简而言之,即使你因为这样或那样的原因建议论文不能发表,也要尽量说一些好话。

5. Don’t exhibit hostility or mean-spiritedness in your review. The field suffers from too many hostile reviews, as Sternberg has noted in his essays on this topic. If there is a confounding that undermines the research in question, point it out directly but without being rude about it. You can say, “Unfortunately, I believe the authors’ conclusions may be limited by the fact that Factor X covaried with the critical Factor Y,” rather than “The authors obviously were poorly trained, as evidenced by their blunder of confounding Factor X with Factor Y, so this entire line of research was a waste of time.” (I have seen much worse statements than this one.)

不要在你的评审中表现出敌意或刻薄。正如斯腾伯格在其文章指出的一样,学术领域里有着太多的带有敌意的评审。如果考虑到存在着会削弱研究的混淆,直接指出来,但不要太粗暴。与其说“作者明显缺乏正规训练,他们混淆了因子X和因子Y的失误正证明了这一点,因此整个研究就是在浪费时间”,倒不如说,“遗憾的是,我相信作者的结论受限于因子X以及共变的关键因子Y”。(我看到过比这样的评语还更糟糕的。)

6. Keep it brief. The editor is a busy person. He or she wants your opinion, but does not want a stream-of-consciousness record of every pithy thought you had while reading the manuscript. Give your conclusion about the publishability of the paper and provide reasons for it, but don’t go on and on. Reviews in most fields of psychology seem to have grown longer over the years (that is my subjective impression, at any rate), although great individual differences exist among reviewers. During my times as editor, I would sometimes get reviews whose length would rival that of the paper. Some of my own have been too long as well, especially in the days when I dictated them. I now try to keep my reviews to one or two pages, which probably makes both the editor and the author happy. Remember, the editor has to read the paper and the several reviews received and then write an action letter. No one wants your logorrheic review to gum up the process.

6. 保持简洁。编辑工作很忙。他或她想要的是你的看法,而不是关于你在阅读手稿时获得的每一个简短想法的“意识流式”记录。给出文章能否发表的结论并提供相应的理由,但不要一而再、再而三地重复。近年来,在心理学的大部分领域,关于文章的评语有越来越长的发展趋势(这是我的主观印象,至少我认为是如此),尽管不同的评审者中存在着明显的个体差异。我做编辑期间,有时候收到的文章评语长度不亚于文章本身的长度。我自己的评语有时也会太长,特别是在口述的时候。我现在尝试着将自己的评语保持在1-2页,这或许能够让编辑和作者都感到高兴。记住,编辑需要既要阅读文章,又要读好几份评审材料,还要写一封批复函。没有人希望你的长篇大论而搞糟整个过程。

7. Don’t nitpick. Don’t go through the paper searching for misspellings and grammatical infelicities. Keep to the main point, the big picture. God created copyeditors for a reason, so you needn’t do their job. If a paper is unusually well or poorly written, that might be worth pointing out; and if a passage or point is difficult to follow, it is fine to note that too. However, there is no reason to go through the paper line by line, as some reviewers do, saying that trail on page 16, line 4, should actually be trial. (Spellcheck cannot catch this type of error; though it does take away some of my favorites from the old days, when people would write about their “important resluts in Experiment 2.”)

7. 不要吹毛求疵。不要过度关注拼写和语法错误。抓住主题思想和文章整体。语言问题自有文字编辑去做,你没必要代劳。如果一篇文章书面表达异乎寻常的好或差,那还是值得指出来的;如果一段话或一个观点难以理解,最好也将它指出来。然而,没有必要逐字逐句地读,象有些评审者所做的,提到第16页第4行的“跟踪”一词实际上是“审验”。(拼写检查无法捕捉到此类错误;当人们论及实验2里的重要结果时,确实带走了我昔日的一些偏好。)

8. Develop a good reviewing style. There is no universally agreed-upon reviewing style, so you must develop one that is comfortable for you. Some people begin with a summary of the paper. Personally, I think this is ok if the paper is confusing and if the editor might need a little help, but there is no need to provide a long summary for a paper that has a straightforward message. One typical style for reviews is to have an introductory paragraph stating the paper’s main point and the reviewer’s initial reaction. The reviewer might then make the case for publishing the paper, listing its strengths and discussing its importance. Next might come a section on the manuscript’s shortcomings and criticisms, as well as advice on how they might be overcome (if they can be). Finally, the review may conclude with a recommendation about the paper’s publishability, with the realization that this is advice for the editor (as discussed in Point 11). This schema is only a suggestion. Many other reviewing styles exist.

8. 形成良好的评审风格。世上并没有普适的评审风格,所以你必须形成适合自己的风格。有引起人喜欢以论文的概要开头。就我个人而言,如果论文有些令人费解和编辑有可能需要帮助,那也是可取的。如果文章本身就提供了易于理解的要点,那就没有必要再提供长的概要。典型的评审风格,一般以一个介绍性的段落来陈述文章的主要观点和评审者的初始反应。然后,评审者要为文章的发表提供具有说服力的理由,列举和论述其长处和重要性。接下去的部分是关于手稿的缺点和批评,以及建议如何克服(如有可能)。最后,以能否发表的建议作为评审的收尾,实际上这就是给编辑的建议(正如第11条里所讨论的)。这只我们建议的一种评审风格,还存在许多其他的风格。

 

9. Be careful in recommending further experimentation. One of the easiest bad habits for reviewers to develop is to routinely recommend that further research be conducted before the paper is published. For most papers, you will be able to think of further experiments that might be done on the topic. However, if the author has provided several experiments already and made a coherent contribution, the critical question is not “can further experiments be done?” (the answer is “yes”), but “does the author need to do further experiments to support the conclusions being made?” (Of course, this question presupposes that one thinks that the conclusions are of interest to the field.) When I get back a review suggesting several further experiments I might do, I usually think “Those are fine experiments. Let the reviewer do them. I submitted the four experiments that (in my opinion) tell an interesting story on their own.” If you write about further research that might be done, use a high threshold and be sure to specify to the editor whether you think it is imperative for publication of the paper or rather just an idea for some future paper. Yes, sometimes a further study is absolutely required to clinch a point and make a paper publishable, but these cases are not as routine as some reviewers and editors make them out to be.

9. 慎重推荐进一步的实验。对评审者来说最容易形成的坏习惯是例行公事地建议在文章发表之前进行更加深入研究。对于大多数的文章来说,你可能会想到针对此主题可以做进一步的实验。但是,如果作者已经做了几个实验和作出了连贯的贡献,那么关键的问题不再是“能否做更加深入的实验?”(答案肯定是“是”),但“真的还需要作者做进一步的实验来支持其得出的结论吗?”(当然,这个问题预设的前提是得出的结论对本领域推进是有益的。)但我收到的评审意见里建议我可以做几个更深入的实验时,我通常会想:“建议的都是挺好的实验。让评审者做去吧。我提交了四个实验(在我看来),是关于这些实验的一个很有意思的故事。”“如果你提及可以作进一步深入的研究,以高标准严要求的角度向编辑具体说明你认为是否需要马上发表或仅仅是对未来文章的一些想法。是的,有时候为确证某一点上的疑虑和使文章更有可能发表,做进一步的研究是完全有必要的,但这些情况并不总是一些评审者和编辑们所想要的。

 

10. Watch for egocentrism. If you received a paper to review, chances are you yourself have published on that topic. Nearly every member of any scientific field is subject to the feeling of citation neglect — “The author should be citing my work more often.” Somehow, we feel compelled to remind the author that we made a similar point to hers, even if we embedded it on page 646 in footnote 2 of that article we published in an obscure journal in 1991. If you find yourself writing statements like that — which are read as “please cite me more” — you know you’ve stepped over the line. Yes, you know your own work better than anyone, and yes, you would like authors to cite it appropriately, but try to resist constant advice to cite your own work. Occasionally you might want to point out one of your papers that is overlooked by the current authors, but don’t make a habit of it.

10. 小心自我中心主义。如果你收到一篇审稿文章,碰巧你发表过此主题相关的文章。几乎任何领域的科学研究人员易受“引证疏漏”那种感觉的影响——“作者应该更多地引用我工作。”不知怎的,我们会不自觉地去提醒作者我们已经提出跟她类似的观点,即使已经将之插入1991年在一本不知名的杂志里发的文章的646页的脚注2里。如果你发现自己作了类似的表达——会看作“请更多地引用我的工作”——知道你已经越过了红线。是的,你认为你的工作比任何人都好,同样是,你希望作者能适当地引用它,但你应抑制反复地建议引进你的工作。偶尔,你可以指出文章的作者忽略了你的一篇文章,但请不要形成一种习惯。

 

11. Make a recommendation about the paper, unless the instructions from the editor tell you not to. Most journal editors want to know what your bottom line is. Rather than just discussing features of the paper and letting the editor guess what your overall opinion is, state it at the end of the review. You may have listed positive and negative factors, but how do you weight them? Conclude with a statement such as “On balance, I do not think this paper should be published in its current form because of [reiterate the two main reasons],” or “I believe the current paper should be published if the author can address [two or three major criticisms].” Don’t be dogmatic about it, though, to give the editor leeway. Sometimes, editors permit you to write a review and then make a statement or recommendation for only the editor’s eyes. Although I have encouraged kinder reviews, you should never write a flattering review of the paper and then write the editor a note that says “I tried to be nice to the authors, but this paper is really terrible and should be rejected.” You put the editor in an untenable position with this practice, so make sure your recommendation is consistent with your review, especially if only the editor sees your recommendation.

11. 提出文章的推荐意见,除非编辑给你指令说不需要。大多数的期刊编辑想知道你的底线。而不仅仅是讨论文章的特点和让编辑去猜测你的整体的看法,在评审的结尾明确陈述你的意见。你可能已经列出了正面和负责的因素,但你又怎样看待其分量呢?最后总结陈述:“总的来说,我认为文章以现有的形式暂还不能发表(重申主要有两个原因),”或“我认为如果作者能够处理好(两三个主要的批评),那当前的文章是能够发表的。”“不过也不要太教条化,要给编辑留有余地。“有时,编辑让你写一份评价意见并要你提出陈述或推荐,只不过是为了迎合编辑的眼光。”尽管我鼓励善意的评审,但并不是要你写奉承的评语,然后给编辑留言说:“我尽量给作者说得好听点,但这篇文章真的很糟糕并且应该被拒。”你在实践中将编辑置在站不住脚的境地,因此您的建议要与你的评审意见相一致,特别是在只有编辑才能看到你的建议的时候。

 

12. Sign your review. Or, if you can’t bring yourself to do that, at least write your review as if the author will learn your identity and you wouldn’t be embarrassed. I sign all of my reviews and have done so for many years. I think if everyone did, most of the problems of nastiness in reviewing would disappear. As psychologists have repeatedly shown (e.g., Zimbardo’s prison experiment), human beings do not display their best behavior when they are cloaked behind the mask of anonymity. Signed reviews will usually be more polite and diplomatic, with much less tendency for brutal, unvarnished criticism. Of course, you still want to give your honest opinion, but (as discussed above) there are helpful and unhelpful ways of relating that opinion. Nonetheless, many discussions over the years have convinced me that people object to signing their reviews for all sorts of reasons. If you fall into this category, my advice is to still write the review as if you were going to sign it. This makes it more likely that you will follow the golden rule of “review unto others as you would have them review unto you.” You may still frequently need to criticize papers, but you can learn to do so in ways that are not blatantly offensive. Signed reviews may not win friends because often you are saying “don’t publish this paper,” but it’s the right course of action, at least for me. Be willing to stand behind your words, not snipe from behind the hills. Also, if you blow a point in your review, you can be sure that the author will let you know and you can be more careful in the future.

请签上你的大名。或者,如果不是你自己亲历亲为,至少在写评语时要认为作者是最解你身份的人,以免尴尬。我给我评审的文章都签名,这样做我已经有好几年了。我觉得如果每个人都做到了,大部分的评审中的不快的事情会很快消失。正如心理学家已经重复表明(例如,津巴多的监狱实验),当隐匿在面具之后时,人们不会表现出良好的行为。在评审中署名,评审者通常会表现得更有礼貌和老练,粗暴而不加修饰的批评的倾向也会少一些。当然,你还是应当给出你的真实想法。但(如前面讨论的)表达想法的路径既有有益的也有无益的。尽管如此,多年来很多讨论使我相信人们反对在评审中署名的有各种各样的理由。如果。如果你也是其中之一,我建议你在评审时就当还是需要署名的情况来处理。这使得你更有可能遵循黄金法则“在评审中进行换位思考”。你可能需要经常性的批评一些文章,但你要学会非公然冒犯的方式方法。署名可能会让你失去一些朋友,因为你通常会说“这篇文章不以发表”,但至少对我来说这是正确的。有话要当面直说,不要在别人背后说坏话。另外,如果你在评审中打压某个观点,作者一定会让你知道,所以你以后还是小心点。

 

Peer review is critical to the scientific process. Although we do not teach courses on reviewing, we should all be mindful of ways to improve the process. For further reading, let me once more recommend Sternberg’s book on Reviewing Scientific Works in Psychology.

同行评议在科学的进程中起着重要的作用。虽然我们没有关于评审的课程,我们应当留意改进评审过程的路径。如有需要深入的了解,我建议大家读一读斯腾伯格写的《心理学里的科学工作评论》一书。

P.S. If you have a review of mine in which I broke one or more of the rules above, no need to send it to me. I know I haven’t always followed my own advice in the past, but I’m trying to reform.

附言: 如果你对我上述的一条或几位规则有评论,没必要发送给我。我知道我也并不总是采用我自己的建议,但我正在尝试着去改进。


Henry L. Roediger, III is James S. McDonnell Professor at Washington University in St. Louis. This column benefited from the advice of David A. Balota, Kathleen B. McDermott, Robert J. Sternberg, Endel Tulving, and John Wixted.

亨利·L.勒迪格III是圣·路易斯华圣顿大学的詹姆斯·S.麦克唐纳教授。此专栏得益于戴维·A. 巴洛塔、 凯思琳·B. 麦克德莫特、罗伯特·J. 斯腾伯格、恩德尔·塔尔文和约翰·维克斯特德的建议。

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2157 

  评论这张
 
阅读(281)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017