摘要：

目的 分析中文科技期刊争鸣论文发表现状,探讨促进学术争鸣的途径。方法 以中国知网为检索平台,通过对2007—2016年农业科技类中文核心期刊群的统计分析,建立争鸣论文数量估算模型,模型通过验证后,用于估算其他自然学科期刊群争鸣论文数量,分析近10年来自然科技中文核心期刊争鸣论文发表及被引情况,并将农业科技期刊争鸣论文的发表情况与同期相应的国外期刊进行对比。结果 自然科技中文核心期刊争鸣论文占同期发表论文的0.012%~0.037%,占比由高到低排序为基础科学、医药卫生科技、工程科技、农业科技,其中农业科技类占比仅为0.012%,低于同期国外农业科技期刊的0.055%。对比分析争鸣论文与一般研究论文的影响发现,涉及重要热点科学问题的争鸣论文被引频次较高,影响力较大。结论 提出定量研究的方法模型,为其他海量文献统计提供了方法参考;我国自然科技中文核心期刊争鸣论文数量较少,学术争鸣气氛不够活跃,原因包括中庸的学术作风、趋同跟风的研究众多、视学术争鸣为人身攻击等认识误区;科技期刊可通过发表针对具有争鸣价值话题的评论性论文、鼓励读者参与对已发表论文的争鸣、刊发虽存在不完善之处但有着创新价值的研究成果等措施来引导学术争鸣的开展,从而推动科技创新和进步。

关键词: 科技期刊, 学术争鸣, 学术繁荣, 科技创新

Abstract:

[Purposes] This study aims to analyze the publishing status of contention papers in Chinese scientific journals, and explore the ways to promote academic contention.[Methods] Based on CNKI platform, we statistically summarized the contention papers in Chinese agricultural scientific journals, and established a model for contention paper numbers estimation. The publishing status of contention papers for Chinese natural scientific core journals in the latest 10 years was analyzed by the validated model and compared with that in the representative foreign agricultural scientific journals.[Findings] The proportion of contention papers in Chinese natural scientific core journals ranges from 0.012% to 0.037%, and it is the highest in the basic sciences, followed by medical science and technology, engineering science and technology, and agricultural science and technology. The proportion of contention papers in Chinese agricultural scientific journals is only 0.012%, which is lower than that in the foreign agricultural scientific journals (0.055%). Compared with that of other papers, the contention papers on hot social issues have higher citations and influence.[Conclusions] The proposed quantitative estimation model provides an effective method for statistical analysis of other massive references. The contention papers in Chinese natural scientific core journals are fewer and the academic contention is not active enough. The reasons might include the golden mean widespread in the research field, tending to follow the research trend, and bias against academic contention since most people consider the contention as personal attack. We should guide the academic contention by publishing commentary papers on important and valuable issues, encouraging readers to actively debate on the published papers, and publishing less perfect but more creative research findings.

Key words: Scientific journal, Academic contention, Academic prosperity, Technology innovation