摘要：

【目的】建立自然科技期刊编辑素质评价指标体系, 并运用该体系进行评估,了解期刊编辑现状, 总结存在的问题, 为继续教育培训课程设置、编辑人才遴选提供依据。【方法】在系统梳理科技期刊编辑素质的概念、内涵、外延、内在要求、内生条件及科技期刊编辑基本素质标准体系现状的基础上,尝试采用德尔菲法对评价指标进行初步筛选,运用层次分析法计算指标权重,并应用综合评价法构建科技期刊编辑素质评价指标体系。【结果】经过对调研数据进行统计分析, 最终确定3个一级指标和12个二级指标的评价体系。其中, 一级指标包括业务素质、信息素质和人文素质;二级指标包括审改能力、语言能力、组织策划能力、数字化编辑能力、创新能力、学科知识素养、大数据能力、信息获取能力、信息利用能力、思想道德、团队协作和社交能力。该体系评估的结果显示,提升期刊编辑的业务素质是当务之急,信息素质的提升紧随其后。【结论】评价过程证实该体系科学可靠, 有较强的可操作性,但仍需进一步实践修正和完善。

关键词: 科技期刊, 编辑素质, 评价体系, 评价指标

Abstract:

[Purposes] The research aims to establish an evaluation index system of scientific journal editors' quality which can be used to evaluate, so as to understand the current situation, summarize the existing problems, and provide the basis for the curriculum design of continuing education and training and the selection of editors. [Methods] This study tried to use Delphi method to screen the evaluation indexes on the basis of systematically combing the concept, connotation, extension, internal requirements and endogenous conditions of scientific journal editors' quality, and the current situation of the basic quality standard system of scientific journal editors. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to index system for weight assignment, and the evaluation index system of editors' quality of scientific journals was established by using comprehensive evaluation method. [Findings] Through the statistical analysis of the survey data, the comprehensive evaluation index system of editors' quality and the weights of each index are finally determined, including three first-level indexes, i.e. professional quality, information quality, and humanistic quality, as well as twelve secondary indicators, i.e. examination and correction ability, language ability, organizational planning ability, digital editing ability, innovation ability, subject knowledge, treatment ability of big data, information acquisition ability, information utilization ability, ideological and moral ability, team cooperation, and social ability. The evaluation results show it is urgent to improve the professional quality of journal editors, followed by information quality. [Conclusions] The evaluation system is scientific, reliable, and easy to operate, but it still needs to be further revised and improved through practice.

Key words: Scientific journal, Editor's quality, Evaluation system, Evaluation index