摘要
将"基金论文比"作为学术期刊的评价指标,不仅在操作性方面会产生不少问题,而且其整体思路是欠科学、欠合理的。一是"基金论文比"指标使评价主体与客体位置倒错,评价逻辑关系混乱;二是"基金论文质量高"的观点,实际是将课题产生优质成果的可能性与必然性划上等号;三是有关数据和研究表明,基金论文刊载的数量与期刊质量不存在正相关关系;四是"基金论文比"指标对办刊产生负面影响,引发编、作双方"共犯"学术不端行为;五是"基金论文比"指标对非基金论文作者存在不公平因素,抑制和浪费了宝贵的人才资源与研究资源。故"基金论文比"不宜作为学术期刊评价的指标。
It is neither feasible nor reasonable to take the ratio of the fund-subsidized papers as an evaluation index of academic journals.First,the logic behind the idea is faulty;second,the view that 'the fund-subsidized papers are surely papers of quality' considers the possibility of the fruits of the funded projects as strong and real;third,the statistics and research related have showed that the ratio of the published fund-subsidized papers and quality of a journal are not in positive correlation;fourth,it can cause the academic misconduct of the editors and authors;fifth,being unfair for the papers that are not fund-subsidized,it is a waste of the human resources and research resources.Therefore,ratio of the fund-subsidized papers should not be considered an evaluation index of academic journals.
出处
《东南大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》
CSSCI
北大核心
2011年第6期122-125,128,共4页
Journal of Southeast University(Philosophy and Social Science)
