多维指标视角下我国社会科学的国际影响力研究——基于经济与商业管理SSCI论文的文献计量分析

Global Impact of Social Sciences in China: Based on Bibliometric and Altmetric Indicators

以近20年(2001—2020年)我国经济与商业管理领域发表的SSCI论文为样本,分别从学术影响和社会影响的角度对比分析了我国国际合作与非国际合作文献、主导文献与非主导文献的影响力差别。研究方法,指标设计上选择了WoS引用次数和Mendeley阅读人数作为学术影响指标,选择Twitter、Blogs、News outlets和Policy documents数量作为社会影响指标;分析方法上分别从国际合作维度(与美国合作、与其他国家合作和非国际合作)和主导性维度(中国主导、美国主导和其他国家主导)进行分析。研究发现,我国在经济与商业管理领域的研究已经取得了一定的成果,对国际合作的依赖性在降低,国际合作中的主导性也在加强。就非国际合作文献与国际合作文献、以及中国主导文献与非主导文献对比来看,学术影响差距在缩小,社会影响差距仍然很大。

China is one of the top countries in the number of academic publications, but the quality and influence still lag compared with other leading western countries. There is also a deficiency in the discourse in the international scientific arena. Scholars are investigating China’s position in international collaboration and the international impact of China’s research. However, most of the studies are conducted with publication data before 2010, not covering the development in recent years. In addition, the studies on leading countries in international collaboration only consider corresponding authors, not taking into consideration the contribution from the first authors. Lastly, the international impact is only measured by citations, missing indicators based on webometrics and Altmetrics.To address the above issues, the study intends to investigate both the academic and social impact of China’s social science research in the international arena using the SSCI papers published by authors from China in economics, business,and management disciplines in the recent twenty years(2001—2020). The number of WoS citations and the number of readers on the Mendeley platform were used as the indicators for academic impact;while the number of posts on Twitter and Blogs, the number of News outlets reports, and the number of Policy documents citations were used to measure social impact. The bibliometric data were retrieved from the SSCI collection in the Web of Sciences and led to a total of66 648 publications with Chinese authors in economics, business, and management during the last twenty years. The altmetric data such as the number of Mendeley readers, the number of Twitter and Blogs recommendations, the number of News outlets reports, and the number of Policy documents citations were obtained from Altmetric.com. The analysis is done by comparing domestic-only publications with internationally co-authored ones, for which include co-authored with United States and co-authored with others countries, and by comparing research led by Chinese authors and those led by authors from other countries, especially the US.The comparison concerning the international collaboration found that the academic impact of domestic-only publications is lower than publications with international co-authors, especially those with co-authors from the US, but the gap is narrowing over the years. Chinese research in social sciences does exhibit a social impact. However, the social impact of domestic-only publications is lower than internationally co-authored publications and the gap is still enlarging. By comparing publications led by Chinese authors and those led by other countries, the study found that the academic impact of research led by China is increasing. The proportion of publications led by Chinese authors has increased greatly over the years. While the average citations of Chinese-led publications are still lower than their counterparts, the gap is closing.The social impact of Chinese-led publications is also lower than those led by authors from other countries, especially the US, and the gap is found to be widening.The study shows that China’s research in the field of economic and business management has progressed rapidly,starting to play a leading role in the international co-authorship and showing less dependence on international collaboration. The study also found that both the academic and social impact of domestic-only publications or Chinese-led research is lower than internationally co-authored publications or research led by other countries. The gap is narrowing for academic impact but is still enlarging for social impact.