摘要：

【目的】 调查与一流学科关联的代表性自然科学与工程技术(理工类)综合性高校学报发文布局,分析这些学报在高校一流学科建设中借力发展的现状,进而探讨理工类学报在一流学科建设中发力的路径。【方法】 以2022年版《中国学术期刊影响因子年报(自然科学与工程技术)》“自然科学与工程技术综合”与“工程技术综合”Q1区中的53种高校学报为样本,在中国知网检索各刊近5年(2018—2022年)发表文献量排名前10的学科分类数据,分析学报发文与主办高校一流学科的关联关系、一流学科高影响力学者对学报发文的引领作用、单个或多个一流学科对学报发文的支撑作用,以及不同一流学科的贡献。【结果】 接近2/3的主办高校一流学科与学报发文全或高关联,而仅约1/3的一流学科高影响力学者对本校学报发文发挥强或中引领作用;19种学报发文受3个及以上一流学科支撑,10种学报发文仅受高校唯一的一流学科支撑,且受多学科支撑的理学类和工学类学报发文的百分比较高,受单学科支撑的理学类学报发文百分比整体较低(20%以下),而工学类学报间差异明显;8个理学类和22个工学类一流学科中,学报发文平均百分比排名前3的学科为数学(25.69%)、航空宇航科学与技术(23.53%)以及建筑学/土木工程学(20.98%)。【结论】 从高影响力理工类综合性学报发文情况可见,其在主办高校一流学科建设中的借力表现在量上尚可,而在质上还有提升空间,工学类一流学科对学报发文的贡献总体高于理学类一流学科。建议学报从促进学科人才成长、引导学科交叉优势形成和构建学术交流场景3个方面发力,助推高校一流学科建设。

关键词: 综合性高校学报, 学科建设, 一流学科, 理学, 工学

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper aims to investigate the publication arrangement of representative comprehensive university journals of natural science and engineering technology related to the first-class disciplines, analyze their development status of borrowing strength during the construction of the first-class disciplines, and explore the boosting force routes of science and engineering university journals during the construction of the first-class disciplines. [Methods] Using 53 university journals from Q1 district of the Annual Report on the Impact Factors of Chinese Academic Journals (Natural Science and Engineering Technology) (2022 edition) in the categories of "Comprehensive Natural Science and Engineering Technology" and "Comprehensive Engineering Technology" as samples, this paper searched for discipline classification data of the top 10 published literature amount in each journal during the past five years (2018-2022) on CNKI and analyzed the relationship between publication in university journals and the first-class disciplines of the sponsor university, the leadership of high influential scholars in the first-class disciplines for publication in university journals, the support strength of single or multiple first-class disciplines for university journal publication, as well as the contributions of different first-class disciplines. [Findings] Nearly 2/3 of the first-class disciplines in the sponsor universities have a full or high correlation with journal publications, while only about 1/3 of these highly influential scholars in the first-class disciplines play a strong or moderate leading role in the publication of their own university journals. There are a total of 19 journals supported by three or more first-class disciplines, while 10 journals are supported by the only first-class discipline in the universities. The percentage of publications in science and engineering journals under multi-disciplinary support is relatively high, and the percentage of publications in science journals under single-disciplinary support is overall relatively low (below 20%), while there are significant differences among engineering journals. Among the eight first-class science and 22 first-class engineering disciplines, mathematics (25.69%), aerospace science and technology (23.53%), and architecture/civil engineering (20.98%) are the top three in terms of average percentage of journal publications. [Conclusions] From the publication arrangement of highly influential comprehensive natural science and technology journals, it can be seen that their borrowing strength performance is acceptable in terms of quantity during the construction of the first-class disciplines in the sponsor university, but there is still room for improvement in terms of quality. The contribution of the first-class engineering disciplines to university journal publication is generally higher than that of the first-class science disciplines. Journals can continuously contribute to the future construction of first-class disciplines in universities by promoting the growth of disciplinary scholars, guiding interdisciplinary advantage formation, and constructing academic exchange scenes.

Key words: Comprehensive university journal, Discipline construction, First-class discipline, Science, Engineering