调查显示,学术声誉“仍由期刊声望所驱动”

对近万名研究人员的全球民意调查显示,文献计量学在确定声誉和机构关系方面存在持续影响

八月 3, 2022
 Press photographers take pictures of the podium of the winning onions to illustrate Journal prestige still driving reputation
Source: Getty

点击阅读英文原文


泰晤士高等教育(Times Higher Education)对近万名学者进行的一项调查发现,尽管国际学术界正努力减少研究引用分数和期刊声望的影响,但它们仍是学者们如何评判彼此的重要因素。

除了与另一位学者的个人互动外,研究人员所发表期刊的感知质量是对其学术地位评价最有影响力的因素,在9609名受访者中,有近一半(49%)学者表示这很重要,并且有12%受访者认为这是最重要的。

当被问及引文指标时,24%的受访者表示学者的h指数和其他类似指标很重要,5%受访者认为这些是最关键的因素。

虽然个人互动在声誉问题上被认为是最重要的(69%受访者认为它重要,且有41%受访者认为它最重要),但在学界持续努力减少学术出版领域所谓的“声望经济”后,文献计量学仍如此流行或许会让一些学者感到惊讶。许多人将顶级期刊订阅和开放获取成本上升和在著名期刊外发表的世界级研究被边缘化归咎于此。

上个月,来自40多个国家/地区的350多个组织签署了一份新协议。该协议以2015年的《莱顿宣言》(Leiden Manifesto)为基础,建议主要根据定性指标来评估研究,并放弃基于期刊的指标。该协议是在《旧金山科研评估宣言》 (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment)发表近10年后达成的,后者倡议在研究资助、职位任命和晋升决策中逐步淘汰基于期刊指标的使用,迄今全球已有近两万人和2600家机构签署该宣言。

根据泰晤士高等教育的调查,约一半机构(48%)使用研究发表期刊的质量来判断研究合作是否成功,超过了将其在学术界以外产生实际影响作为衡量标准(37%)。

泰晤士高等教育咨询团队的高等教育高级顾问马克·特韦德尔(Mark Tweddle)表示,对研究人员的调查(这些研究人员中79%至少拥有11年研究经验)表明了领先期刊和文献计量学在学界内的持久影响。

特韦德尔先生说:“随着近年来学界越来越多地转向开放获取出版物,人们可能会认为,从学术研究发表之处获得声誉的情况可能会减少。”

他补充说:“也许迟早会出现这种情况,但就目前而言,旧习惯似乎很难被改掉,在某些期刊上发表论文的学者仍获得大量声誉。”

调查还发现,当被问及如何选择合作的机构时,价值观与研究专长同样重要。近三分之一(32%)受访者认为能够以开放和信任的方式开展合作是对开启合作最有影响力的因素,而同样比例(32%)的受访者表示研究专业知识的一致性是合作的最关键因素。

有11%受访者将研究者的个人声誉列为首要因素,而2%的受访者提到了研究人员所在大学的整体声誉,但分别有51%和11%的受访者认为这些因素有些重要。

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com

如果您想了解有关该调查结果的更多信息,欢迎联系咨询@timeshighereducation.com。

后记

Print headline: Journal prestige still driving reputation

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

Reader's comments (6)

How was ‘journal prestige’ defined in this survey? For over 25 years survey after survey of authors (such as conducted by ALPSP, as one example) have shown that the most important factor in an author’s choice of publishing venue is whether the journal has the most appropriate ‘targeted readership’ for the author’s own research interests. Citation counts, impact factors and other prestige measures - while not insignificant - are secondary factors. Journals represent a specific ‘community of scholars’, so publishers’ ‘marketing for content’ tends to focus on the questions, ‘Does my work belong in this journal?’, and ‘Is this the right place for research communication with my peers?’.
Sorry but I think this "appropriate readership" question is so hopelessly vague - to be almost useless. Historians publish in history journals, physicians/med researchers in medical journals (largely): but when it comes to selecting a title with the fields' range of journal choices, that's where bibliometrics become dominant. Maybe not in surveys (where people typically answer as their best self), but in the hundreds of interviews and discussions with students and researchers, everyone has a wish/hit list, almost always driven by perceived prestige (aka IF)
Weighing a pig does not make it heavier. Achieving high numbers of citations seems as useful as getting more "likes" and retweets on Twitter and says nothing about the quality (rather than popularity / awareness ) of the research. We need a better / more tangible way of measuring the value of a piece of research.
Problem with this is a journal like the Cambridge Law Journal sometimes has 80 percent of its papers from staff in Cambridge and that is statistically impossible if it really is a full open contest.
‘journal prestige’ defined by classim and whether the journal is hosted by big old brand name university
The practice that should be considered very carefully is multi-author publications where author contributions cannot be verified and are in some cases dubious. When prestigious journals have hundreds of authors or in some cases thousands of 'contributors' how can both the individual and the Institution claim a reputational benefit? This needs to be strongly reconsidered from an ethical perspective.