人文学科期刊评价新视角:以人评文,以文评刊——以中国语言文学为例
|
摘要
【目的】为了在期刊评价中体现人文学科以"人"为核心的学科特点,从多个维度揭示期刊的办刊特色。【方法】采用文献调研、专家访谈、问卷调查和文献计量的方法,以中国语言文学作为分析对象,收集其下属二级学科的期刊&集刊数据,将调研所得的定性指标定量化,以构建评价指标体系,并且创新性地将学术集刊纳入评价体系。【结果】提出"以人评文,以文评刊"的评价思路,认为刊物的学术影响力由其作者的影响力来决定,即该刊聚集核心作者的数量越多,核心作者发表文章的数量越多,则该刊物的学术影响力越高。以期刊&集刊的核心作者强度和基于核心作者的学术影响力为主要指标,以年均机构方差、跨学科引用、5年影响因子等为辅助指标,从多个维度揭示期刊&集刊的办刊特色。【结论】所提出的评价方法可为人文学科期刊评价提供全新视角,对我国人文学科期刊评价体系的建设和完善具有一定的借鉴意义。
[Purposes]This paper aims to reflect the academic characteristics of the humanities with " author" as the core in the evaluation of journals,and reveal the journal achievements of their missions and goals in multiple dimensions. [Methods]Taking Chinese language and literature as the analytic object,we collected the journal( collection) data of their secondary disciplines by the literature research,expert interview,questionnaire survey,and bibliometric methods,the qualitative indicators obtained from the survey were quantified,and after that we constructed the evaluation system. The academic collections were innovatively incorporated into the evaluation system. [Findings]We put forward the evaluation method of " evaluating articles by author and evaluating journals by articles". We think the academic influence of journals is determined by the influence of the authors of articles published in journals,that is,the more the journal gathers core authors,the more articles published by core authors,the higher the academic influence of the journal. We use the intensity of core authors and academic influence based on core authors as main index,and use the annual average institutional variance,interdisciplinary citations,and five-year impact factors as auxiliary indexes,to reveal the characteristics of journals & collections from multiple dimensions. [Conclusions] This study provides new perspective to evaluate journals of humanities,and the proposed evaluation method can provide references to construct and improve the evaluation system of humanity journals in China.
[Purposes]This paper aims to reflect the academic characteristics of the humanities with " author" as the core in the evaluation of journals,and reveal the journal achievements of their missions and goals in multiple dimensions. [Methods]Taking Chinese language and literature as the analytic object,we collected the journal( collection) data of their secondary disciplines by the literature research,expert interview,questionnaire survey,and bibliometric methods,the qualitative indicators obtained from the survey were quantified,and after that we constructed the evaluation system. The academic collections were innovatively incorporated into the evaluation system. [Findings]We put forward the evaluation method of " evaluating articles by author and evaluating journals by articles". We think the academic influence of journals is determined by the influence of the authors of articles published in journals,that is,the more the journal gathers core authors,the more articles published by core authors,the higher the academic influence of the journal. We use the intensity of core authors and academic influence based on core authors as main index,and use the annual average institutional variance,interdisciplinary citations,and five-year impact factors as auxiliary indexes,to reveal the characteristics of journals & collections from multiple dimensions. [Conclusions] This study provides new perspective to evaluate journals of humanities,and the proposed evaluation method can provide references to construct and improve the evaluation system of humanity journals in China.
引文
[1]陈文忠.论人文学科的学术方法[J].安徽师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2016,44(2):201-214.
[2]张积玉.论人文社科学术期刊综合评价指标体系的构建[J].现代传播(中国传媒大学学报),2010,32(12):40-46.
[3]张积玉.人文社科学术期刊出版质量综合评估的特点、指标体系及相关问题探讨[J].现代传播,2011,33(10):43-50.
[4]苏新宁.人文社会科学期刊评价指标体系研究[J].图书馆论坛,2006,26(6):59-65.
[5]杜向民,樊建强.人文社科类学术成果同行评议的指标体系及权重分配[J].中国高教研究,2015(1):70-74.
[6]陈茹.国内四种人文社科期刊评价体系的分析比较[J].图书馆工作与研究,2013(4):66-70
[7]钱蓉.基于同行评议的复合型人文社科学术评价——以复印报刊资料为例[J].河南大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2016,56(5):138-144.
[8]梁建东.突破陈旧模式重建学术共同体——关于当前人文学科的成果评价标准之反思[C].海南省社会科学学术年会,2013.
[9]王秀玲.论学术集刊的独特价值与发展路径[J].出版发行研究,2017(10):56-60.
[10]罗式胜.文献计量学概论[M].广州:中山大学出版社,1994.
[11]中国集刊网[EB/OL].[2018-12-16]. http://www. jikan.com.cn/.
[12]台湾学术期刊在线数据库[EB/OL].[2018-09-16]. http://www.twscholar.com/.
[13]台湾人文及社会科学引文索引资料库[EB/OL].[2017-02-27]. http://tci.ncl.edu.tw/.
[14]赵嫚.中国语言类学术集刊的发展现状及趋势分析[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2012,18(4):66-69.
[15] Initiative F. Facilitating interdisciplinary research[J].Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research,2005,48.
[16]李江.“跨学科性”的概念框架与测度[J].图书情报知识,2014(3):87-93.
[17] Moed H F. Research assessment in social sciences and humanities[C]. ECOOM Colloquium Antwerp,2008.
[18]王兰敬,杜慧平.欧美人文社会科学评价的现状与反思[J].南京大学学报(哲学·人文科学·社会科学版),2010,47(1):111-118.
[19] van Raan A F J. Assessment of social sciences:The use of advanced bibliometric methods as a necessary complement of peer review[J]. Research Evaluation,1998,7(1):2-6.
[2]张积玉.论人文社科学术期刊综合评价指标体系的构建[J].现代传播(中国传媒大学学报),2010,32(12):40-46.
[3]张积玉.人文社科学术期刊出版质量综合评估的特点、指标体系及相关问题探讨[J].现代传播,2011,33(10):43-50.
[4]苏新宁.人文社会科学期刊评价指标体系研究[J].图书馆论坛,2006,26(6):59-65.
[5]杜向民,樊建强.人文社科类学术成果同行评议的指标体系及权重分配[J].中国高教研究,2015(1):70-74.
[6]陈茹.国内四种人文社科期刊评价体系的分析比较[J].图书馆工作与研究,2013(4):66-70
[7]钱蓉.基于同行评议的复合型人文社科学术评价——以复印报刊资料为例[J].河南大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2016,56(5):138-144.
[8]梁建东.突破陈旧模式重建学术共同体——关于当前人文学科的成果评价标准之反思[C].海南省社会科学学术年会,2013.
[9]王秀玲.论学术集刊的独特价值与发展路径[J].出版发行研究,2017(10):56-60.
[10]罗式胜.文献计量学概论[M].广州:中山大学出版社,1994.
[11]中国集刊网[EB/OL].[2018-12-16]. http://www. jikan.com.cn/.
[12]台湾学术期刊在线数据库[EB/OL].[2018-09-16]. http://www.twscholar.com/.
[13]台湾人文及社会科学引文索引资料库[EB/OL].[2017-02-27]. http://tci.ncl.edu.tw/.
[14]赵嫚.中国语言类学术集刊的发展现状及趋势分析[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2012,18(4):66-69.
[15] Initiative F. Facilitating interdisciplinary research[J].Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research,2005,48.
[16]李江.“跨学科性”的概念框架与测度[J].图书情报知识,2014(3):87-93.
[17] Moed H F. Research assessment in social sciences and humanities[C]. ECOOM Colloquium Antwerp,2008.
[18]王兰敬,杜慧平.欧美人文社会科学评价的现状与反思[J].南京大学学报(哲学·人文科学·社会科学版),2010,47(1):111-118.
[19] van Raan A F J. Assessment of social sciences:The use of advanced bibliometric methods as a necessary complement of peer review[J]. Research Evaluation,1998,7(1):2-6.