摘要：

目的 通过对重庆区域样本的实证验证，剖析科技期刊集群化发展的需求动因，辨明驱动力与阻力，为我国区域科技期刊集群化发展提供决策依据与路径参考。 方法 采用定性与定量相结合方法，对7名出版领域资深专家的深度访谈进行质性分析，结合文献研究结果构建核心问题框架，设计结构化调查问卷，针对重庆科技期刊从业人员开展问卷调查。运用SPSS 22.0对数据进行统计分析。 结果 调查共回收93份有效问卷，覆盖重庆67个科技期刊编辑部（占比64.42%）。结果显示其集群化发展由内外因素驱动，内部表现为以下4个方面：质量控制体系脆弱，65.7%的期刊缺乏方法学审查，且61.3%对研究真实性审查不严；人力资源错配严重，69.9%的编辑时间耗于校对，仅32.3%投入内容策划；生存压力需求，76.3%的期刊亟需降本增效，且自负盈亏期刊在“创收”与“学术质量”间的冲突显著；主观认知矛盾，从业者呈现“高认同（75.3%认为必须集群）、浅认知（仅36.6%认同其与市场化关联）、缓实践”的突出特征。外部动因源于：国家战略对期刊服务能力的新要求、科研人员对中英文刊的不同绩效需求、数字化与市场竞争的倒逼。而集群化可以解决这一系列期刊发展困境。 结论 本研究揭示了一个关键的“认知-实践”悖论，重庆科技期刊集群化呈现“高认同、浅认知、缓实践”的特征；集群化发展需求迫切且多维；当前“集而不团”的根源在于各层级认知深化不足与核心出版环节的协同缺失。因此，发展的关键并非简单地扩大集群规模，而是需要触发一场深刻的系统性变革，推动各参与方在共识构建、利益协调与流程再造上取得实质性突破。

关键词: 科技期刊, 集群化, 集约化, 需求动因

Abstract:

Purposes Through a regional empirical study of Chongqing， this research systematically analyzes the internal and external demand drivers for the clustering development of its scientific journals， aiming to identify the genuine drivers and barriers， thereby providing a precise decision-making basis and strategic references for clustering practices in similar regions across China. Methods Adopting a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative and quantitative research， in-depth interviews with seven senior publishing experts were thematically analyzed to construct a core problem framework and design a structured questionnaire. A survey was subsequently administered to professionals working in scientific journals in Chongqing. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0. Findings The study collected 93 valid questionnaires， covering 67 editorial departments （representing 64.42% of all journals in the city）. The demand for clustering were driven by intertwined internal and external factors. Internally， this is reflected in the following four aspects. A fragile quality control system： 65.7% of journals lack methodological review， and 61.3% conduct insufficient scrutiny of research authenticity. Severe mismatch of human resources： 69.9% of editorial time is consumed by mechanical proofreading， with only 32.3% available for content planning. Pressure to reduce costs and increase efficiency： 76.3% of journals urgently need to achieve this， with self-sustaining journals showing significant conflict between “revenue generation” and “academic quality”. Cognitive contradiction： Practitioners display the prominent features of “high recognition （75.3% believe clustering is necessary）， shallow cognition （only 36.6% associate it with marketization）， and slow practice”. External drivers stem from： new requirements for journal service capabilities under national strategies， the differing performance?based demands of researchers toward Chinese and English?language journals， and the pressure from digitalization and market competition. Clustering can address this series of challenges in journal development. Conclusions This study reveals a key “cognition-practice” paradox. Chongqing’s scientific journals show a pattern of “high recognition， shallow cognition， and slow practice” regarding clustering. The demand for clustering development is urgent and multi-dimensional. The current situation is characterized by “aggregation without integration”， rooted in insufficient cognitive depth among stakeholders and a lack of synergy in core publishing processes. Therefore， the key to future development lies not simply in expanding the scale of clusters， but in triggering a profound systemic change that drives substantive breakthroughs among all participants in three key areas： consensus building， interest coordination， and process reengineering.

Key words: Scientific journals, Clustering, Consolidation, Demand drivers