FI与AI:评价体育科学研究者学术积累的新方法

FI and AI:A New Evaluation Method for Academic Accumulation of Sport Science Researchers

为量化评价研究者个人在其核心研究方向的学术积累和学术发展情况,提出关于研究者个人学术发展评价的2个新指标:①核心方向聚焦指数(Focus Index of Core Direction,FI),反映研究者在其学术研究核心方向上的聚焦程度;②核心方向积累指数(Accumulation Index of Core Direction,AI),反映研究者在其学术研究核心方向上的积累程度。在中国知网和万方数据库中联合检索4所体育院校193名博士生导师发表的全部中文期刊论文的前5个关键词,计算其FI和AI,分析体育人文社会学、运动人体科学、体育教育训练学、民族传统体育学、运动康复学等5个学科领域的学术聚焦和积累情况,讨论FI、AI与学术创新性、学术影响力、学科领域、关键词专业性、不当学术行为等的关系。认为:FI和AI计算简便,弥补了采用H指数等个人学术评价指标的不足,其使用有助于促进研究者个人的良好学术行为和长远学术发展;体育科学研究者需提高学术方向的集中程度和积累的深入程度,以便在相对狭窄的方向做出更深入的探索;与所有学术评价指标一样,FI和AI也存在不足,如在研究者发文量极低的情况下,FI可能失去其预期功效,采用AI评价跨学科、交叉学科领域的研究者存在一定局限性。

The two new indicators were proposed to quantitatively evaluate researchers’academic development,focusing on researchers’accumulation of their core research direction.The first indicator is Focus Index of Core Direction(FI),which reflexes the focused level of a researcher’s core direction in his/her academic research.The second indicator is Accumulation Index of Core Direction(AI),the accumulation level of a researcher’s core direction.After searching CNKI and Chinainfo database for journal papers published by 193 Ph.D.supervisors in 4 sports universities,the FI and AI were calculated using their first 5 key words in 5 fields including sports humanism and sociology,sports sciences,sports training and P.E.,traditional sports and sport rehabilitation.Relationship were discussed between FI and AI on one side,and academic creativity,academic impact,different research disciplines,key words relevance,and problematic research behaviors on the other.The results believe that FI and AI are easy to calculate and helpful for promoting individual researchers’good academic practice and long term academic development,thus to correct the weakness of H index.Researchers in sport sciences need to improve their focus level and accumulation level so that better achievement can be reached from in-depth research.Meanwhile,however,FI and AI,like all of academic evaluation indices,suffer from some insufficiency.For example,FI may lose its function when the number of publication is very small for a scholar and it may also not be effective to evaluate researchers in inter-disciplinary or cross-disciplinary sciences.