摘要：

【目的】 进一步提升科学公众对科技期刊评价工作的科学认知能力和合理使用水平,充分发挥评价工作在科技期刊高质量发展中的积极推动作用。 【方法】 在梳理国内五大科技期刊评价体系的基础上,对有关期刊评价结果、期刊评价指标的认知不足和使用偏差进行归类剖析和导正,并对科技期刊评价工作的未来发展方向进行展望。 【结果】 (1)科学合理地使用科技期刊评价成果必须对该评价体系的目的、方法、模型、数据来源等进行系统深入的理解和掌握;(2)基于引证数据统计的被引频次和影响因子等指标的科学描述需要清楚地标注相关统计参数信息,如施引文献统计源、统计时间窗口等;(3)在相同的出版状态和传播条件下,期刊的被引频次与其可被引文献质量和数量呈正相关,而影响因子只与期刊前两年的可被引文献的质量呈正相关;(4)高影响因子的科技期刊倾向于获得更多高质量稿源,从统计学的意义来看,在真正的高水平期刊阵营中,某一学科影响因子较高的期刊大概率具有较高的可被引文献量;(5)期刊影响力指数不能进行跨学科和跨年度的比较,而WAJCI和WJCI在一定程度上则不受此限制;(6)未来可将科技期刊定位为一个科技出版与服务平台,构建全面反映科技期刊内容质量、工作成效(品牌、影响力)和社会贡献(内容、服务)的多元、开放的综合评价体系和探索基于规范流程、监督问责机制和权威公信力的期刊评价“同行评议”服务方案,是科技期刊评价未来发展的重要方向。 【结论】 在中国“世界一流科技期刊”目标建设的关键期,建立一种专业、科学、清晰的科技期刊评价工作认知观、使用观,客观评估相关定量评价指标和结果的科学作用,不唯期刊评价指标和结果,不以提升评价结果和指标为直接的办刊目标,坚持办好期刊即做好服务的办刊理念,牢记办刊初心,坚持质量和价值第一的用稿标准,做好内容、做精传播、做足服务,努力开创具有中国特色的科技期刊高质量发展新时代。

关键词: 科技期刊评价, 影响因子, 被引频次, 影响力指数(CI), “认知-应用”误区;, 思辨, 同行评议, 高质量发展

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper aims to boost the correct understanding and rational use of scientific journal evaluation, in an effort to give full play to the positive role of evaluation in the high-quality development of scientific journals. [Methods] After briefing the five major evaluation systems for scientific journals in China, this paper analyzed the misundertandings and misues of evaluation results and indexes, proposed countermeasures, and summarized future development directions of scientific journal evaluation. [Findings] (1) Scientific journal evaluation results can be used on condition of an in-depth understanding of the purpose, method, model, data source, and other parameters of the evaluation system. (2) Based on citation data, cited frequency, impact factor, and other indexes should be used with clear description of the statistical parameters, such as sources of citing articles and time window. (3) Under the same publishing status and dissemination conditions, cited frequency of journals is in positive relationship with the quality and quantity of the corresponding citable articles, while the impact factor is only in positive relationship with the quality of citable articles in the two years before statistics. (4) Scientific journals with high impact factors tend to have more quality papers. To be specific, statistics show that it is more possible for journals with high impact factors in a discipline to have many citable articles. (5) Comparison of clout index (CI) among disciplines or years is invalid, but this does not apply to WAJCI and WJCI. (6) Scientific journal is destined to be a publishing and service platform, for which a diversified and open comprehensive evaluation system that comprehensively reflects the content quality, outcome (brand and influence), and social contribution (content and service) and a "peer review" service scheme for journal evaluation based on standard procedure, supervision-accountability mechanism, and authority credibility are the future development directions in evaluation. [Conclusions] Under the initiative of building world-class scientific journals, scientific journals shoud uphold the principles of understanding and using journal evaluation results in a professional, scientific, and clear manner, objectively assessing the scientific effect of quantitative evaluation indicators and results, and prioritizing quality and value of papers rather than evaluation indicators and results, in a bid to provide quality content, achieve precise dissemination, and broden services. They should strive to seek high-quality development with Chinese characteristics in the new era.

Key words: Scientific journal evaluation, Impact factor, Cited frequency, Clout index(CI), Misunderstanding and misuse, Thinking and analysis, Peer review, High-quality development