学术期刊规范性评价及实证——以编辑出版学期刊为例

Normative Evaluation of Academic Journals and Its Empirical Research——Take Editing and Publishing Journals for Example

对学术规范、学术期刊的学术规范进行了综合分析,比较了现有的四大人文社会科学学术期刊评价体系的定性、定量评价指标,提出完善人文社会科学学术期刊学术规范性评价指标体系的初步构想:以摘要、关键词、参考文献和基金论文比这4个指标界定学术期刊与非学术期刊,然后采用直接指标和间接指标对学术期刊的学术规范性进行评价;对某一类别的学术期刊可以经归一化处理后通过指标赋权的方法进行排序,也可以采用非权重排序方法。对编辑出版学期刊进行了实证分析,结果表明,在17种期刊中仅有4种期刊可以界定为学术期刊,并与现有期刊评价的结果进行了比较。

By analyzing the academic norms and academic journals comprehensively, comparing the qualitative and quantitative evaluation indexes of four journals of humanities and social sciences, a preliminary idea for perfecting academic normative evaluation index system of humanities and social sciences journals is proposed. That is to say, we can use the abstract, key words, the references and the rate of papers with fund support to define academic journals. Then, the academic norms can be evaluated by direct and indirect indexes, and a certain type of academic journals can be processed and sorted through determing the weight of indexes or by non-weight sorting method. At last, the editing and publishing journals are empirically analyzed, and the result of comparing with the exiting journals shows that only 4 out of 17 kinds of journals can be defined as academic journals