精英同行评价与大众同行评价的结果是否一致?--以人大《复印报刊资料》转载论文为例  

Are the Results of the Elite Peer Evaluation Consistent with the Public Peer Evaluation?--An Analysis on Reprinted Newspapers and Periodicals of RUC

作　　者：耿屿 郭毓晗 方燕 张光耀 田文灿 王贤文 Geng Yu;Guo Yuhan;Fang Yan;Zhang Guangyao;Tian Wencan;Wang Xianwen(WISE Lab,Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences,Dalian University of Technology,Dalian 116024;School of Economics and Management,Dalian University of Technology,Dalian 116024)

机构地区：[1]大连理工大学人文与社会科学学部WISE实验室,大连116024 [2]大连理工大学经济管理学院,大连116024

出　　处：《情报杂志》2022年第10期156-162,146,共8页Journal of Intelligence

基　　金：国家自然科学基金项目“地理与网络二维空间及其交互影响视角下的科学论文扩散研究”(编号:71673038)成果之一;国家自然科学基金项目“科学文献全景大数据下的研究热点及研究前沿探测”(编号:71974029)成果之一。

摘　　要：[研究目的]对于同一篇文献,审稿人和读者的评价会保持一致吗?该研究从学术评价中的精英遴选和大众投票视角出发,以人大复印报刊资料《企业管理研究》(F31)和《图书馆学情报学》(G9)转载论文为研究对象,探讨了精英同行评价和大众同行评价间的分歧。[研究方法]运用文献计量和统计学方法,对转载论文与原发刊同期论文在被引频次和下载频次上的差异展开研究,计算论文排名指标,并通过单因素方差分析验证差异显著性。[研究结论]研究发现,精英遴选与大众投票结果具有明显差异,被转载的论文无论是被引还是下载频次,均低于原发刊同期论文的平均水平,这种差异在不同时间都具有显著性。结果表明,存在人大复印转载的精英同行遴选与大众同行评价意见分歧的现象,导致这一现象的原因可能是同行专家评价的主观性、异质性、评审专家人数、专家对于领域前沿的把握、甚至评审责任心等。科技评价实施精英同行评价时应该谨慎。最后提出了包括适当增加专家人数、选择活跃在科研一线的同领域专家、完善评审制度、实行开放同行评审、倡导负责任评价,以及认可同行评审专家贡献等建议。[Research purpose]Does the judgment of reviewers and peers for the same paper remain consistent?Papers reprinted in the RUC Reprint Journal of Business Management Research(F31),and Journal of Library Science and Information Science(G9)were selected as the research objects,to explore the conflict between elite peer evaluation(peer review)and the public peer evaluation(citation)from the perspectives of elite selection and general voting in academic evaluation.[Research method]The differences in citation and download frequencies between reprinted papers and control group(other papers in the same original issue)were investigated,ranking indicators were calculated,and the significance of the differences was verified using one-way ANOVA.[Research conclusion]According to the analysis of Reprinted Newspapers and Periodicals of RUC,the results of elite selection and general voting were found to be significantly different,and the reprinted papers had lower citation and downloads than the average of control group(papers published in the same original issue),with this difference showing significance at different times.The findings show that the elite evaluation differs from the public peer evaluation more frequently,which could be due to the subjectivity and heterogeneity of peer expert evaluation,the quantity of review experts,the reviewer's understanding of the research frontier,or even the reviewer's sense of responsibility.When applying elite peer evaluation in science and technology,care should be taken.The following countermeasures were suggested at last:increasing the number of experts,picking experts in the same field who are engaged on the front line of scientific research,improving the review system,adopting open peer evaluation,calling for responsible review,and recognizing the role of peer reviewers,etc.

关 键 词：同行评价 精英评价 大众评价 人大复印转载 引文评价 被引频次 下载次数 

分 类 号：G301[文化科学]