摘要：

目的 以权威引领和问题导向为切入点，审视与思考新时代体育学术期刊与学科中国化发展进程，为推动体育学术期刊高质量发展、服务体育学中国化进程提供理论参考与实践路径。 方法 立足编辑视角，采用理论分析与案例佐证相结合的方法，剖析体育学术期刊同行评议中存在的现象及深层问题。 结果 研究表明，体育学术期刊论文评审中的权威引领现象与社会情境密切相关。在中国体育学的历时性发展中，专家权威伴随“知识-权力”互动、知识领域分化及学术共同体建构而不断生成与强化。权威的介入虽有助于体育学术期刊与学科获得学术网络认同，但也因过度依赖而制约了学科知识创新，具体表现为：僵化发问抑制学科创新，匮乏发问制约学科对话，主观发问削弱学科活力。 结论 面对上述困境，应充分认识到“问题导向”的重要性，避免绝对化的权威引领。可通过形塑主体评议新秩序以营造学术争鸣氛围；构建主体评议新空间以优化公共学术平台；完善主体评议新体系以重构学术评价生态。

关键词: 体育学术期刊, 自主知识体系, 学科发展, 科技期刊

Abstract:

Purposes Taking authority leadership and problem orientation as the entry point， this paper examines and reflects on the development of sports academic journals and the sinicization of kinesiology disciplines in the new era， so as to provide theoretical references and practical approaches for advancing the high-quality development of sports academic journals and facilitating the sinicization of kinesiology. Methods From the perspective of an editor， this study combines theoretical analysis with case evidence to analyze the phenomena and deep-seated problems existing in the peer review of sports academic journals. Findings The research shows that the phenomenon of authoritative guidance in the review of sports academic journal papers is closely related to the social context. In the diachronic development of Chinese sports studies， expert authority has been continuously generated and strengthened along with the interaction of “knowledge-power”， the differentiation of knowledge fields， and the construction of academic communities. Although the intervention of authority helps sports academic journals and the discipline gain recognition in the academic network， it also restricts the innovation of disciplinary knowledge due to excessive reliance. Specifically， it is manifested as： rigid questioning inhibits disciplinary innovation， scarce questioning restricts disciplinary dialogue， and subjective questioning weakens disciplinary vitality. Conclusions In the face of the above predicaments， it is necessary to fully recognize the importance of “problem orientation” and avoid absolute authoritative guidance. This can be achieved by shaping a new order of subject review to create an atmosphere of academic debate； constructing a new space for subject review to optimize the public academic platform； and improving the new system of subject review to reconstruct the academic evaluation ecosystem.

Key words: Sports academic journals, Independent knowledge system, Academic discipline development, Scientific journals