摘要：

目的 评估2025年自然指数（Nature Index）数据库首次发布的应用科学期刊目录及其遴选规则的合理性，为我国科技期刊发展提供参考。方法 系统梳理自然指数期刊遴选规则的演进历程。从创刊年份、载文量、出版国家与机构、学术影响力等维度对比分析24种新纳入的应用科学期刊、145种既有基础科学期刊以及部分中国高影响力科技期刊。结果 基础科学期刊的出版历史均值长于应用科学期刊。自然指数期刊高度集中于美国、英国、荷兰和德国4国和Elsevier、Springer Nature、Oxford University Press、American Chemical Society、John Wiley and Sons Inc等出版机构。应用科学期刊载文量为基础科学期刊的1.92倍，整体学术影响力大体相当，但仅在16.95%的覆盖学科中CNCI高于对应基础科学期刊均值。我国已有3种具备一定载文规模的期刊，其核心影响力指标达到或超过基础科学期刊水平，但均未入选。结论 自然指数对应用科学成果的界定标准存在争议，遴选方法存在偏倚，对我国高质量科技期刊的代表性不足。我国应理性看待商业机构主导的科研评价体系，加快构建中国特色同质等效的科技期刊评价体系，以多元化路径提升期刊国际学术声誉，促进科技期刊高质量发展与学术生态持续优化。

关键词: 自然指数, 科技期刊, 期刊评价, 基础科学, 应用科学, 学术影响力

Abstract:

Purposes To evaluate the rationality of the directory of applied science journals and the selection criteria published for the first time in the 2025 Nature Index database， and to provide guidance for the development of scientific journals in China. Methods We systematically traced the evolution of the selection criteria for Nature Index journals. Then conducted a comparative analysis of 24 newly included applied science journals， 145 existing basic science journals， and selected high-impact Chinese scientific journals， examining dimensions such as first publication year， publication volume， source country and institution， and academic impact. Findings The average publishing history of basic science journals is longer than that of applied science journals. Nature Index journals are highly concentrated in four countries，the United States， the United Kingdom， the Netherlands， and Germany，and among publishers such as Elsevier， Springer Nature， Oxford University Press， the American Chemical Society and John Wiley and Sons Inc. The publication volume of applied science journals is 1.92 times that of basic science journals， and their overall academic impact is roughly equivalent. However， their CNCI exceeds the average of basic science journals in only 16.95% of the covered disciplines. Three Chinese journals with substantial publication volumes have already reached or exceeded the levels of Nature Index journals in key impact metrics， yet none have been included in the Nature Index journal list. Conclusions There is controversy surrounding the criteria used by the Nature Index to define research outputs in applied sciences. Its selection methods exhibit biases and underrepresent high-quality Chinese scientific journals. China should take a rational view of research evaluation systems led by commercial organizations， accelerate the development of a homogeneous and equivalent scientific journal evaluation system with Chinese characteristics， and adopt multi-pronged approaches to enhance the international academic reputation of journals， thereby promoting the high-quality development of scientific journals and the continuous optimization of the academic ecosystem.

Key words: Nature Index, Scientific journals, Journal evaluation, Basic sciences, Applied sciences, Academic impact