中国科技期刊研究 ›› 2018, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (12): 1201-1207. doi: 10.11946/cjstp.201806260563

• 论坛 • 上一篇    下一篇

科技期刊学术不良行为认知与管控研究——基于作者、编辑和审稿专家的问卷调查分析

张春丽1),倪四秀2)(),宋晓林3)   

  1. 1) 中国科学院东北地理与农业生态研究所《中国地理科学(英文版)》编辑部,吉林省长春市高新北区盛北大街4888号 130102
    2) 江苏师范大学图书馆,江苏省徐州市铜山新区上海路101号 221116
    3) 中国科学院东北地理与农业生态研究所《地理科学》编辑部,吉林省长春市高新北区盛北大街4888号 130102
  • 收稿日期:2018-06-26 修回日期:2018-09-25 出版日期:2018-12-15 发布日期:2018-12-15
  • 通讯作者: 倪四秀 E-mail:qrb@jsnu.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:张春丽(ORCID:0000-0003-4460-1943),博士, 副编审,E-mail: zhangcl@iga.ac.cn|宋晓林, 博士,副编审。
  • 基金资助:
    2017年中国科学院自然科学期刊编辑研究会研究课题(Y7B6011001);江苏师范大学人文社会科学基金项目(15XWA04)

Cognition and control about improper academic conduct in scientific journals: Based on questionnaire survey of authors, editors, and reviewers

ZHANG Chunli1),NI Sixiu2)(),SONG Xiaolin3)   

  1. 1) Editorial Office of Chinese Geographical Science, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 4888 Shengbei Avenue, Gaoxin North District, Changchun 130102, China
    2) Library of Jiangsu Normal University, 101 Shanghai Road, Tongshan District, Xuzhou 221116, China
    3) Editorial Office of Scientia Geographica Sinica, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 4888 Shengbei Avenue, Gaoxin North District, Changchun 130102, China
  • Received:2018-06-26 Revised:2018-09-25 Online:2018-12-15 Published:2018-12-15
  • Contact: NI Sixiu E-mail:qrb@jsnu.edu.cn

摘要:

【目的】分析学术不良的行为表现、原因及责任主体,并提出管控措施。【方法】论文以作者、编辑和审稿专家为调查对象,围绕科技期刊学术不良行为总体态度和认知、学术不良行为表现认知和学术不良行为产生的原因及主要责任主体认知三个问题,对科技期刊学术不良行为进行调查研究。【结果】科技期刊学术不良行为已引起广泛关注,作者、编辑和审稿专家均持抵制态度;对科技期刊学术不良行为表现的认知局限于学术腐败、学术道德和学术规范层面,而对学术评价体系和价值导向层面关注不够;科技期刊学术不良行为产生的原因是多元的,以往多关注作者、编辑和审稿专家方面的主观行为,忽视了学术评价标准及价值导向等客观方面的不足,导致科技期刊作者发文目的偏差;从学术不良行为责任主体来看,作者本人、大学和科研机构评价体制以及学术监管部门的客观责任主体比直接参与的编辑和审稿专家的主体责任更大。【结论】应从价值观塑造、评估体系优化、行为监管加强、学术素养培养等方面进行综合管控和防范,以杜绝科技期刊学术不良行为发生。

关键词: 科技期刊, 学术不良行为, 问卷调查, 管控措施

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper aims to identify the behavior, cause, and responsibility body of improper academic conduct, and proposes the appropriate countermeasures. [Methods] We focused on the three problems including the general attitude towards improper academic conduct, cognition about improper academic conduct, the cognition about the causes and main responsibility body of improper academic conduct based on questionnaire survey of authors, editors, and reviewers. [Findings] Improper academic conduct in scientific journals has caused wide public concerns and most people are resistant to academic improper academic conduct. The cognition of improper academic conduct in scientific journals, confined to academic corruption, academic morality, and academic norm, and there is no enough attention to the academic evaluation system and value orientation. The causes of improper academic conduct in scientific journals are multivariate. In the past, more attention was paid to the subjective behavior of authors, editors, and reviewers, ignoring the objective deficiencies in the academic evaluation standards and the value orientation, resulting in the deviation of the purpose of publishing articles. Main responsibility bodies of improper academic conduct in scientific journals are authors, evaluation system of universities and research institutions, and academic supervision department, instead of editors and reviewers. [Conclusions] We should take measures in terms of shaping right values, optimizing evaluation system, strengthening behavior regulation, and enhancing academic quality to prevent improper academic conduct in scientific journals.

Key words: Scientific journal, Improper academic conduct, Questionnaire survey, Countermeasure