|
| 期刊编辑和科研人员对“顶级期刊”的认知异同比较研究 |
| A Comparative Study of Similarities and Differences in Perceptions of “Top Journals” between Journal Editors and Professors |
| 投稿时间：2026-01-05 修订日期：2026-06-03 |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 顶级科技期刊，概念，特征，认知异同，发展建议 |
| 英文关键词: top-tier journals concept feature development proposal |
| 基金项目:湖南省哲学社会科学评审委员会重点课题（XSP26ZD1003）；2022年施普林格 • 自然—中国高校科技期刊研究会英文编辑及国际交流人才培养基金项目（CUJS-GJHZ-2022-01） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 184 |
| 全文下载次数: 30 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 如何创办一本顶级科技期刊是我国一流科技期刊建设中重要目标之一。这要求我们深入了解顶级科技期刊的界定与特点。本文采用文献分析法、问卷调查法等对已有研究成果进行述评，尝试界定顶级期刊的概念，并针对英文期刊编辑、教授群体进行问卷调研，进而对3个部分34道问题的结果予以分析、比较和归纳。研究结果显示：322位参与调研教授与编辑同意顶级论文是顶级期刊得以被广泛认可的充要条件，87.57%的调查对象认为顶级论文在顶级期刊中的占比不到25%；顶级期刊最重要的 3 个特征分别是“科学家团队是否具有较高水准且实质性投入办刊（87.89%）”，“办刊宗旨是否长期一致性与明确性（71.12%）”、“全职编辑是否具有较高的学术水平与独立性（72.05%）”，但编辑与教授在论文指标、内容与处理机制等方面的各指标存在认知程度差异。编辑与教授对编辑工作和顶刊特征的认知异同给我国期刊建设提供了有益借鉴。文章最后，从注重人员的协作性、发展的长期性、工作的主动性、建设的根本性、布局的差异性、评价的自主性等6个方面提出了建设顶级期刊的建议。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Establishing world-leading scientific journals constitutes a core objective in China’s initiative to develop first-class scholarly publications. Achieving this goal necessitates an in-depth understanding of the definition and intrinsic attributes of top-tier scientific journals. Drawing on literature review and questionnaire survey methodologies, this paper reviews existing relevant research, defines the concept of elite academic journals, and distributes questionnaires targeting English journal editors and university professors. Statistical analysis, comparison and induction are conducted based on survey data covering three dimensions and thirty-four questionnaire items. Empirical results indicate that all 322 surveyed professors and editors concur that high-caliber original papers serve as both the necessary and sufficient condition for a journal to earn widespread recognition as a top-tier publication, while 87.57% of respondents estimate such benchmark papers account for less than 25% of total published articles in elite journals. The three most vital hallmarks of leading journals, as prioritized by participants, include substantive editorial involvement by high-standard scientist teams (87.89%), consistent and clearly defined long-term editorial missions (71.12%), and full-time editors with robust academic competence and independent decision-making authority (72.05%). Nevertheless, notable divergences exist between editors and professors in their perceptions of metrics for manuscript quality, journal content governance and peer review workflows. The consensus and discrepancies in their viewpoints on editorial practices and core characteristics of top journals offer valuable references for the development of China’s domestic academic publications. In closing, this study puts forward targeted suggestions for fostering world-class journals from six perspectives: prioritizing interdisciplinary teamwork, adhering to long-term sustainable development, proactively advancing routine editorial work, consolidating foundational journal development, implementing differentiated journal positioning, and building independent journal evaluation systems. |
|
View Fulltext
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
