专家审稿制度提升了中国法学研究水平吗?——基于双重差分法对121家法学期刊的实证研究  

Has the Peer Review System Improved the Quality of Legal Scholarship in China?--An Empirical Study on 121 Legal Journals Based on DID

作　　者：米传振 MI Chuanzhen

机构地区：[1]成都大学法学院,四川成都610106

出　　处：《政治与法律》2025年第1期161-176,共16页Political Science and Law

基　　金：四川省哲学社会科学规划项目“法治四川”专项课题“法学博士点建设提升中国法学研究水平的机制分析:基于双重差分法的实证研究”(项目编号:SC23FZ019)的研究成果。

摘　　要：2000年以来,我国部分法学期刊陆续推行专家审稿制,该制度运行效果如何?在121家法学期刊中,以采用专家审稿的62家期刊为实验组,以未实行专家审稿的59家期刊为控制组,运用渐进双重差分法分析了专家审稿制度对中国法学研究水平的实际影响。在控制了论文数量、论文篇幅、出版周期、是否CSSCI来源期刊、办刊单位级别、办刊历史以及有无线上投稿系统后,运用双向固定效应模型对期刊总被引次数、影响因子等被解释变量回归后发现,仅声明施行专家审稿对期刊学术水平的提升作用在统计上并不显著。在控制变量保持不变进行回归后发现,与仅声明施行专家审稿的期刊相比,实际实施专家审稿的期刊在提升学术质量方面成效更明显。对法学期刊而言,如欲提高期刊质量和法学研究水平,只是声明施行专家审稿还远远不够,必须真正落实专家审稿制度。基准回归结论通过了平行趋势检验、个体安慰剂检验、缩尾处理、以论文下载量替换核心被解释变量和内生性检验等稳健性检验。专家审稿制度是加强法学学术期刊管理、推动法学学术期刊高质量发展的长效机制,对于提升中国法学研究水平有积极促进作用,是贯彻落实《关于加强新时代法学教育和法学理论研究的意见》的重要举措。Since 2000,some legal journals in China have successively implemented the peer review system.How well is the system functioning?Out of 121 legal journals,62 journals with peer review system were selected as the experiment group,and 59 journals without peer review system were selected as the control group.The Time-varying DID method was used to analyze the actual impact of the peer review system on the quality of legal scholarship in China.After controlling for variables such as the number of papers,page count,publication cycle,CSSCI-indexed status,level of host unit,journal history,and the availability of online submission system,and employing a Two-way Fixed Effects Model to regress citation counts,impact factors and other dependent variables of journals,it was found that simply declaring the implementation of the expert review system did not have a statistically significant effect on improving the academic level of the journal.After maintaining the control variables unchanged for regression,it was found that compared to the journals that declared the implementation of peer review system,journals that actually implemented peer review system significantly improved their academic quality.For legal journals and legal science of China,if it is intended to improve the quality of journals and the level of legal research,only the declaration of implementing peer review is far from enough,the peer review system must be actually implemented.The benchmark regression conclusion passed the robustness tests such as parallel trend test,individual placebo test,winsorization of the explained variable,replacing the core dependent variable with the number of papers downloaded,and endogeneity test.The peer review system is a long-term mechanism to strengthen the management and promote the high-quality development of legal academic journals,and contributes a lot to improving the quality of legal scholarship in China,and is an effective support for implementing the Opinions on Strengthening Legal Education and Theoretical Research i

关 键 词：法学期刊 专家审稿 中国法学 双重差分 实证研究 

分 类 号：DF0[政治法律—法学理论]