人文社科学术专著同行评议与文献计量评价的实证比较  

Comparative Study on Peer Review and Bibliometric Analysis Used for Monographs Evaluation in the Area of Humanities and Social Sciences

作　　者：袁曦临[1,2] 沈宸 Yuan Xilin;Shen Chen

机构地区：[1]东南大学图书馆,江苏南京210096 [2]东南大学经济管理学院,江苏南京211189

出　　处：《图书与情报》2020年第5期24-30,共7页Library & Information

基　　金：国家社科基金重大课题“新时代我国文献信息资源保障体系重构研究”(项目编号:19ZDA346);南京大学图书馆学亮点工程项目“中国高校图书馆质量评价研究”研究成果之一。

摘　　要：人文社科领域学术专著质量评价的既有方法主要为基于同行评议的定性评价与基于文献计量的定量评价,但是两种性质不同的评价方法所产生的评价结果是否存在差异值得关注和探讨。文章以人文社科领域最具代表性的历史学科为对象,对五届郭沫若中国历史学奖的获奖图书进行引文分析,并将获奖图书被引情况与同期同研究领域图书进行比较,探讨定性评价结果与文献定量评价的相关性;研究表明,同行评议结果与文献计量分析结果具有显著相关性,同行评议评选出的人文学科专著的学术影响力明显高于同期同学科领域专著,且这一差距随着时间发展日益扩大。研究结果为确立合理和有效的人文学科学术专著质量评价体系提供了参考。Peer review and bibliometric analysis are two main methods used for evaluation of academic monographs in the field of Humanities and social sciences,but the differences of the evaluation results using two different evaluation methods should be concerned and discussed.Focus on the Chinese History monographs,the author analyzes the citations of prize-winning works of Guo Moruo Prize in Chinese History and compares the citations of the winning books with the other works in the same subject field in the same period to explore the correlation between the two evaluation methods of academic monographs and found that the results of peer review is significantly correlated with the result of bibliometric analysis.And the academic influence of academic monographs selected by peer review is significantly higher than other monographs in the same period.

关 键 词：学术专著 质量评价 文献计量 同行评议 

分 类 号：G252[文化科学—图书馆学]