• 评论与分析 •

“卓越行动计划”领军期刊的多维度指标评价及发展趋势研究

1. 1)中国药科大学理学院,江苏省南京市鼓楼区童家巷24号 210009
2)中国药科大学《中国天然药物》编辑部, 江苏省南京市鼓楼区童家巷24号 210009
• 收稿日期:2021-05-16 修回日期:2021-07-16 出版日期:2021-09-15 发布日期:2021-09-15
• 作者简介:丁佐奇(ORCID:0000-0003-0957-4193),博士,编审,博士生导师,E-mail: zqding1028@163.com|李楚威,硕士研究生
• 基金资助:
中国科学院自然科学期刊编辑研究会2021年研究课题“由卓越行动计划期刊看我国世界一流科技期刊建设策略”(YJH202101)

Developing trend of leading journals of Excellence Action Plan for China STM Journals based on multi-dimensional index evaluation

DING Zuoqi1,2)(), LI Chuwei1)

1. 1)School of Science, China Pharmaceutical University, 24 Tongjia Lane, Gulou District, Nanjing 210009, China
2)Editorial Office of Chinese Journal of Natural Medicines, China Pharmaceutical University, 24 Tongjia Lane, Gulou District, Nanjing 210009, China
• Received:2021-05-16 Revised:2021-07-16 Online:2021-09-15 Published:2021-09-15

【目的】 对“中国科技期刊卓越行动计划”(以下简称“卓越行动计划”)领军期刊近4年(2017—2020年)的多维度指标进行研究。【方法】 利用InCites数据库收集领军期刊的载文量、国际化程度、学术影响力相关指标,使用差异性分析、相关性分析等方法研究领军期刊的发展趋势。【结果】 领军期刊载文量呈现上升趋势,国际合作论文占比没有显著变化,但是收录的中国作者稿件占比呈现上升趋势;在期刊学术影响力方面,顶尖论文(被引频次前0.1%)数量和拥有顶尖论文的期刊数量都呈上升趋势,中高质量论文数量也有所提升但占比下降,大部分领军期刊的CNCI值高于1,近4年没有显著变化;领军期刊影响力与被引频次前30%论文占比呈正相关性,与影响因子Top100的国际期刊影响力仍有差距。【结论】 为促进“卓越行动计划”领军期刊高速发展,提出以下几点建议:重塑有利于学科发展的科技评价体系,助力一流期刊发展;基于学科空白创办高起点新刊,进一步提高领军期刊国际化程度;利用社交媒体、提高高质量论文占比,以及建立期刊品牌来提升期刊国际影响力。

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper aims to study the multi-dimensional indexes of the leading journals of Excellence Action Plan for China STM Journals in recent four years (2017-2020). [Methods] The annual number of papers and other indexes related to the internationalization and academic impact of the leading journals were retrieved from InCites and thereby the development trend of these journals were clarified based on difference analysis and correlation analysis. [Findings] The annual number of papers on leading journals showed an upward trend. In contrast with the insignificant variation of the proportion of papers from foreign scholars, that from Chinese scholars has been on the rise. In terms of the academic impact, the number of top (0.1%) papers and the number of journals with top papers went up, while the proportion of high-quality and medium-quality papers decreased despite the rise in number. Most of the leading journals have seen no significant change in category normalized citation impact (CNCI), with the values >1. The impact of leading journals was positively correlated with the proportion of the top 30% papers in cited frequency and was lower than that of the top 100 international journals in impact factor. [Conclusions] The following suggestions are proposed for the development of the leading journals: tailoring the scientific and technological evaluation system to discipline development to lay a basis for high-quality development, creating cutting-edge journals with high starting point for preponderant disciplines to boost internationalization, and improving international impact via social media, high-quality papers, and branding.