入类视角下的学术期刊影响力实证研究 以建筑学学科为例

An Empirical Study on Influence of Academic Journals from the Perspective of Classification In the Case of Architecture

在人才培养、学术期刊影响力评价与学术期刊管理中,学科划分与入类逻辑十分重要。在当前人才培养方面,国务院划分学科为110个,众多学术期刊影响力评价方多采用图书馆学、学科分类与代码类目方式进行,而学术期刊管理方则采用图书馆学进行,几者之间在类目划分逻辑与数量方面存在较为明显的差异。上述差异的存在不仅导致学术研究成果难以找到恰当的学术期刊发布,也导致难以聚集恰当的学者对成果进行同行评价,使部分新兴学科与模糊领域的研究成果难以被恰当评价,进而导致学科发展受到影响,科研管理方、学术期刊评价方在学科划分与入类逻辑上未能及时与学科发展同步调整是重要原因。文章以发展迅速的建筑学为例,论证采用不同入类逻辑带来的学术期刊影响力的不同结果,表明当前期刊评价体系的入类逻辑亟需改善。学术期刊发展、科研管理的最终目的是为学科发展与人才培养,因此有必要改变以往中图法为主的入类逻辑为人才培养体系。

In talent training, evaluating the influence of academic journals and managing academic journals, disciplinary division and categorizing logic are very important. In the current talent training program, the State Council divides it into 110 disciplines. In many cases, the evaluation of the influence of academic journals resorts to library science, subject classification and code categories, and academic journals management adapts library science. Among these methodologies, one can find obvious differences between the number of categories and the dividing logic. The existence of these discrepancies not only results in the difficulty of finding appropriate academic journals, but also leads to the difficulty of engaging the appropriate scholars to evaluate the results. Consequently, some emerging disciplines and the research result of some uncertain areascannot be evaluated appropriately and cause the delay in disciplinary development. This paper takes the rapid development of architecture as an example to demonstrate the different results of influencing the academic journals by using the different types of logic, which indicates that the logic of the current journal evaluation system needs to be improved. The development of academic journals, the ultimate goal of scientific research management is to develop disciplines and talent training, it is necessary to change the class diagram-based logic for talent training system.