摘要：

目的 系统考察在“科普中国”战略背景下，中国科技期刊科普工作开展的实际情况、面临的核心障碍及可行的发展路径，为推进科技期刊的科普工作开展提供理论依据与实践对策。 方法 通过前期信息收集，设计了涵盖5个维度48项内容的问卷，经问卷星面向全国发放和收集，最终回收有效问卷303份，样本覆盖东、中、西部及理、工、农、医等多学科领域。 结果 结果显示，我国科技期刊广泛认同自身所承担的社会责任与时代使命，并认可科技期刊开展科普工作对期刊本身发展具有较大的正向影响。然而，实际科技期刊科普工作的开展率仅为1/3，多数期刊存在显著的科普工作开展短板，呈现出“高认同、弱实践”。 结论 科技期刊科普工作开展的障碍集中于：体制机制方面（评价体系与科普导向适配不足）、资源渠道方面（资金投入少与传播平台局限）、人才能力方面（编辑缺乏科普素养与创作技能），以及内容生产方面（科研成果难以有效转化为科普内容）。针对科技期刊科普工作开展的障碍，建议在宏观层面进一步优化政策激励与评价机制；在中观层面构建协同创新平台，推动资源共享与跨界合作；在微观层面着力提升期刊自身科普内容创作和转化能力，加强人才队伍建设与内容形式创新。

关键词: 科技期刊, 科普, 科学传播, 评价体系, 发展路径

Abstract:

Purposes This study systematically investigates the current status， core challenges， and viable development paths of science popularization activities by Chinese scientific journals within the context of the “Science Communication China” national strategy. It aims to provide a theoretical basis and practical recommendations for promoting science popularization activities in scientific journals. Methods Based on preliminary information collection， a questionnaire covering five dimensions and 48 items was designed. It was distributed and collected nationwide via Wenjuanxing， resulting in 303 valid responses. The sample covered eastern， central， and western regions and multiple disciplines including science， engineering， agriculture， and medicine. Findings The findings indicate that Chinese scientific journals widely acknowledge their social responsibility and mission in the current era， and recognize that conducting science popularization activities has a significantly positive impact on journal development. However， only one-third of journals actually carry out such efforts， with most showing notable gaps between recognition and practice， reflecting a pattern of “high recognition， weak implementation”. Conclusions The obstacles to science popularization in scientific journals mainly lie in： institutional mechanisms （mismatch between the current evaluation system and the goals of science popularization）， resource and channel （insufficient funding and limited dissemination platforms）， talent and competency （editors lacking the necessary literacy and creative skills for science communication）， and content production （difficulty in effectively transforming scientific research outcomes into accessible popular science content）. To address these obstacles， it is recommended to further optimize policy incentives and evaluation mechanisms at the macro level； build collaborative innovation platforms to promote resource sharing and cross-sector cooperation at the meso-level； and enhance journals’ own capabilities in science popularization content creation and transformation， strengthening talent development and innovating content formats at the micro-level.

Key words: Scientific journals, Science popularization, Science communication, Evaluation system, Development path