情报科学 ›› 2021, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (12): 105-112.

• 业务研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

中国学者学术话语权评价指标体系的构建与应用研究——以国际生物学为例

  

  • 出版日期:2021-12-01 发布日期:2021-12-29

  • Online:2021-12-01 Published:2021-12-29

摘要: 【目的/意义】学术话语权的作用是保证学界说话的权利以及参与国际学术议题的制定,研究中国学术话语
权有助于中国学术地位的提升,进而维护好本国利益的权力。【方法/过程】本文通过学术话语权的内涵,论述了学
术引领力、学术影响力和学术竞争力三个核心构成要素,借助Python等分析工具处理数据,综合运用相关分析、主
成分分析以及回归分析等方法,对学术话语权评价指标进行了定量分析和选取,构建了中国学术话语权评价指标
体系,并对中国生物医学领域的学术话语权进行评价和分析。【结果/结论】通过研究发现中国学者的学术话语权在
国际上具有一定地位和优势,这些学者主要来自中国科学院;但与大多数欧美国家还存在一定的差距。【创新/局
限】从学术主体层面提出了学术话语权评价的核心构成要素,为学术话语权研究提供了新思路。不足之处在于,仅
从作者视角对一个学科的学术话语权进行了实证研究。

Abstract: 【Purpose/significance】The role of academic discourse power is to ensure the academic community’s right to speak and par?
ticipate in the formulation of international academic issues.Studying the power of academic discourse in China is helpful to the promo?
tion of China's academic status,and then the power to safeguard its own interests【. Method/process】This paper discusses the three core components of academic leadership,academic influence and academic competitiveness through the connotation of academic discourse power.Processing data with the help of analysis tools such as Python,comprehensively using methods such as correlation analysis,prin-cipal component analysis, and regression analysis,quantitative analysis and selection of evaluation indicators for academic discourse power have been constructed to the evaluation index system for Chinese academic discourse power.It also evaluates and analyzes the academic discourse power in China's biomedical field.【Result/conclusion】It is found that the academic discourse power of Chinese scholars has certain status and advantages in the international arena.These scholars are mainly from the Chinese Academy of Sciences; But there is still a certain gap with most European and American countries【. Innovation/limitation】From the academic subject level, the core components of the evaluation of academic discourse power are put forward,which provides new ideas for the study of academic discourse power.The disadvantage is that the empirical research on the academic discourse power of a certain discipline is only carried out from the author's perspective.