摘要：

目的 系统探究重庆科技期刊集群化发展的实践路径与经验启示，深入分析其发展现状、实践路径和经验启示，为科技期刊集群化发展提供实证参考。 方法 采用定性与定量研究相结合的方法，遴选重庆4家典型集群单位行深度访谈获得一手资料进行质性分析，以分析重庆科技期刊集群化发展的实践路径，并归纳总结其经验启示；结合国内7名出版领域专家访谈结果设计结构化调查问卷；针对重庆科技期刊开展问卷调查，回收有效问卷93份，覆盖67个编辑部（占全市期刊64.42%），分析重庆科技期刊集群发展的现状特征。 结果 重庆已形成8个科技期刊集群，呈现出“高校主导、学科集中、平台初建”的总体格局，75.3%的从业者认同集群化发展方向；当前集群化整合主要停留在传播（42.9%）、科研协助服务（39.3%）、印刷出版（35.7%）等外围环节，而审稿（17.9%）、编辑（10.7%）等核心出版流程的整合度低；已建成涵盖材料科学、医药卫生等关键领域的六大特色学科集群，核心期刊占比达43%；资源共享机制呈现深度耦合与松散联动并存态势，60.8%的刊群仍处于“形聚神散”状态，官方统计数据与集群化的真实运行情况不符；资金、人才与技术短缺成为主要制约因素，60.7%的集群表示“严重缺乏资金”，67.9%认为“严重缺乏相关人才与技术团队”。 结论 科技期刊集群化发展顶层战略引领是根本保障，体制机制创新是关键动力，资源共享平台是实质基础，产学研融合是价值核心，数字化转型是必然路径，智库期刊建设是区域发展新方向。

关键词: 科技期刊, 区域集群, 实证研究, 集群化发展范式

Abstract:

Purposes This study aims to systematically explore the practical pathways and experiential lessons from the cluster-based development of scientific journals in Chongqing， conduct an in-depth analysis of its current status， practical approaches， and insights， and provide empirical references for the cluster-based development of regional scientific journals. Methods Combining qualitative and quantitative research， in-depth interviews were conducted with four typical journal clusters in Chongqing for first-hand data and qualitative analysis to examine their practical pathways and summarize experiences. Structured questionnaires were designed based on interviews with seven domestic publishing experts. A survey of Chongqing scientific journals collected 93 valid responses from 67 editorial offices （covering 64.42% of local journals）， analyzing the current status and features of clustered development. Findings Chongqing has formed eight scientific journal clusters， showing an overall pattern of “university-led， discipline-focused， and platform-established at a preliminary stage”. 75.3% of practitioners agree with the direction of clustered development. Current integration remains mostly in peripheral aspects such as dissemination （42.9%）， research support services （39.3%）， and printing/publishing （35.7%）， while core publishing processes like peer review （17.9%） and editing （10.7%） show low integration. Six characteristic disciplinary clusters have been established in key fields such as materials science and healthcare， with core journals accounting for 43%. Resource-sharing mechanisms exhibit both deep coupling and loose linkages， and 60.8% of clusters remain “integrated in form but separated in spirit”， with official statistics not fully reflecting actual operations. Funding， talent， and technology shortages are key constraints： 60.7% of clusters report “severe lack of funding”， and 67.9% indicate “severe shortage of relevant talent and technical teams”. Conclusions The clustered development of scientific journals must be underpinned by top-level strategic guidance， driven by institutional and mechanism innovation， grounded in a robust resource-sharing platform， centered on the integration of industry， academia， and research， advanced through digital transformation， and oriented toward cultivating think tank journals as a new regional development pathway.

Key words: Scientific journals, Regional clusters, Empirical study, Cluster-based development paradigm