摘要：

目的 探讨集群化办刊模式在提升科技期刊学术影响力方面所具有的显著优势，但未能同步延伸至科技期刊科普工作开展的内在机制，从而推动学界对期刊集群化的完整认知。 方法 基于全国303份科技期刊的问卷调查，综合运用T检验、卡方检验与回归分析等方法，对集群期刊与单刊在科普人力资源、科普财力资源、高成本内容形式偏好和外部合作倾向4个关键维度进行对比。 结果 研究表明，集群期刊在上述4个关键方面，并未显著优于单刊。集群期刊所具备的学术资源优势，未能有效转化为科普能力。 结论 集群化优势在科技期刊科普工作开展中的“失灵”，根源在于战略优先级错配与组织惯性的双重制约。在现有评价导向和既有成功路径依赖下，期刊集群化倾向于将核心资源高度集中于学术竞争力提升，导致对期刊科普工作开展形成制度性忽视。

关键词: 科技期刊, 集群化, 科学普及, 资源错配

Abstract:

Purposes The clustering publishing model has proven highly effective in enhancing the academic influence of scientific journals， yet its efficacy in science popularization activities has fallen short of expectations. This study aims to explore the institutional barriers behind this contrast. Methods Based on a questionnaire survey of 303 scientific journals nationwide， methods including T-test， chi-square test， and regression analysis were employed to compare clustered journals and standalone journals across four key dimensions： human resources for popularization， financial resources， adoption of high-cost content formats， and external collaboration tendencies. Findings The study finds that clustering journals do not significantly outperform standalone journals in the four key dimensions examined. The academic resource advantages of clustering journals have not been effectively translated into enhanced science popularization capabilities. Conclusions The “breakdown” of the clustering model in science popularization stems from the dual constraints of strategic priority misallocation and organizational inertia. Under the prevailing evaluation framework and reliance on established success paths， journal clusters tend to concentrate core resources heavily on enhancing academic competitiveness， leading to institutional neglect of science popularization activities. This study provides theoretical insights and empirical support for re-evaluating the social service functions of journal clusters and optimizing the synergistic development of academic communication and science popularization.

Key words: Scientific journals, Clustering, Science popularization, Resource misallocation