中国科技期刊研究 ›› 2021, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (9): 1166-1173. doi: 10.11946/cjstp.202102280181

• 质量建设 • 上一篇    下一篇

新形势下我国科技期刊稿源变化趋势——面向作者和科技期刊编辑的问卷调查与分析

李灿灿(), 徐秀玲, 王贵林, 董少华, 严谨   

  1. 《中国科学》杂志社,北京市东城区东黄城根北街16号 100717
  • 收稿日期:2021-02-28 修回日期:2021-06-28 出版日期:2021-09-15 发布日期:2021-09-15
  • 作者简介:李灿灿(ORCID:0000-0003-4935-5067),博士,编辑,E-mail: licancan@scichina.org|徐秀玲,博士,编辑|王贵林,博士,副编审|董少华,博士,副编审|严 谨,博士,编审
  • 基金资助:
    中国科协学会服务中心科技期刊项目“我国科技期刊质量影响要素分析研究”(2020XFKJQK03)

Trend of contribution sources for Chinese scientific journals under new situations: A survey of authors and editors

LI Cancan(), XU Xiuling, WANG Guilin, DONG Shaohua, YAN Jin   

  1. Science China Press, 16 Donghuangchenggen North Street, Dongcheng District, Beijing 100717, China
  • Received:2021-02-28 Revised:2021-06-28 Online:2021-09-15 Published:2021-09-15

摘要:

【目的】 分析科技评价体系改革和国家大力扶持期刊发展新形势下我国科技期刊稿源动态变化趋势,助力国内科技期刊加速发展。【方法】 针对作者和科技期刊编辑分别设计了“国内科技期刊作者投稿意愿调查”和“2020年国内科技期刊稿源情况调查”问卷,利用问卷星提供的问卷设计和问卷发放(借助科研、期刊交流微信群)、统计分析等功能完成问卷调查。【结果】 大多数(86.2%)期刊2020年的投稿量比2019年增加,但增加1倍以上的期刊仅占6.4%;大部分期刊稿件平均质量有所提高(49.4%)或基本持平(47.0%)。绝大多数作者比较认可中国科技期刊,但同时对期刊发文速度、审稿质量、传播力度等有越来越高的要求,对期刊服务能力、品牌特色有越来越多的期待。【结论】 科技评价体系改革和国家扶持期刊发展为中国科技期刊发展带来了机遇和挑战,面对作者投稿国内期刊意愿的变化,我国科技期刊应该采取更加积极的应对措施,稳步扩大出版量、优化出版流程以承载更多回流的优秀稿件。

关键词: 科技评价体系改革, 期刊政策, 中国科技期刊, 稿源, 动态变化

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper intends to analyze the dynamic trends of the contribution sources for Chinese scientific journals under the background of research evaluation system reform and the government's enhanced support of scientific journal development. [Methods] The questionnaires of "Willingness to Submit to Chinese Scientific Journals" and "Contribution Sources for Chinese Scientific Journals in 2020" were respectively designed for authors and editors of scientific journals with a platform (Sojump) powered by www.wjx.cn, distributed with the help of WeChat and online and offline forums, and statistically analyzed with Sojump. [Findings] Most of the journals (86.2%) had an increase in the number of submissions in 2020 over 2019, and only 6.4% enjoyed a doubled number. The quality of manuscripts improved (49.4%) or leveled off (47.0%). The majority of authors are willing to submit to Chinese scientific journals, but have higher requirements for publication cycle, review quality, dissemination capacity, as well as the service ability and brand characteristics. [Conclusions] Facing the opportunities and challenges brought by research evaluation system reform and the government's enhanced support of scientific journal development, Chinese scientific journals should take active steps to steadily expand the publishing volume and optimize the publishing process to attract more high-quality papers.

Key words: Research evaluation system reform, Policy support for journals, Chinese scientific journal, Contribution source, Dynamic trend