我国学术评价发展特征、存在问题与变革趋势——基于《中文核心期刊要目总览》评价指标分析

Development Characteristics, Problems and Trends of Chinese Academic Evaluation: Analysis of Evaluation Indicators?Based on A Guide to the Core Journals of China

摘要:

《中文核心期刊要目总览》自1992年首版至今共已公布了9版，其发展特征、存在问题与变革趋势可作为我国学术评价的代表。因此，在破除“唯论文、唯帽子、唯职称、唯学历、唯奖项”背景下，为进一步认识我国学术评价的发展规律与价值，推动学术评价制度完善，以《中文核心期刊要目总览》的演变历程为抓手，将其划分为建立起步（1992－2000年）、转型发展（2004－2011年）、全面深化（2014年至今）3个发展阶段，从核心期刊的数量及其继承性角度，辅以对现阶段研究成果全面性、动态性维度的考察，揭示其发展特征、发现和分析存在问题。结果显示：《中文核心期刊要目总览》评价指标体系30多年来不断丰富与优化，收录的核心期刊数量趋于稳定、继承率不断提高，但在指标体系上仍面临载文量异常下降、学术规范疏于监管、专家认可度界定不当、评价标准困于引用、统计源尚有欠缺五大问题，在评价结果上存在核心规模制约发展、榜单更迭不显著两大困境。由此从健全评价体系、提高成果效用方面提出相关对策建议，为“学术评价要转向何方”之问寻求理性方案。

Abstract:

A Guide to the Core Journals of China has been published in 9 editions since its first edition in 1992. Its development characteristics, problems and trends can serve as representatives of academic evaluation in China. Therefore, in order to further understand the development law and value of Chinese academic evaluation and promote the improvement of the academic evaluation system, under the background of breaking away from "only papers, only hats, only titles, only academic qualifications, only awards", the evolution of A Guide to the Core Journals of China is the starting point. It can be divided into three stages: the beginning of the establishment (1992-2000), the transformation and development (2004-2011), and the overall deepening (2014-present). By examining the quantity and continuity of core journals, supplemented by a comprehensive and dynamic assessment of current research achievements, the study aims to reveal the development characteristics and analyze existing problems. The results indicate that the evaluation indicator system of A Guide to the Core Journals of China has been continuously enriched and optimized over the past 30 years. The number of core journals included has become stable, with an increasing rate of continuity. However, at present, in terms of the index system, it faces five problems: the abnormal decline in the number of papers, the lax supervision of academic norms, the improper definition of expert recognition, the evaluation criteria trapped in citation, and the lack of statistical sources. In the evaluation results, there are two dilemmas: the core scale restricts the development and the list changes insignificantly. Based on this, relevant suggestions are put forward from the aspects of perfecting the evaluation system and improving the effectiveness of the results, and a rational scheme is sought for the question of “Which direction should academic evaluation turn to".