出版科学 ›› 2026, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (3): 105-112.

• 青年学者论坛 • 上一篇    下一篇

人文社会科学学术图书评价研究述评

  

  1. (北京大学信息管理系,北京,100871)(北京大学信息管理系,北京,100871)(北京印刷学院出版学院,北京,102600)(北京大学信息管理系,北京,100871
  • 收稿日期:2024-10-25 修回日期:2025-07-17 出版日期:2026-07-13 发布日期:2026-07-14
  • 基金资助:
    本文系国家自然科学基金委项目“基于知识和推理领域化增强的学术能力评价语言模型研究”(62577003)的阶段性成果。

Review of Research on the Evaluation of Academic Books of Philosophy and Social Sciences in China

  1. Department of Information Management, Peking University, Beijing, 100871)(Department of Information Management, Peking University, Beijing, 100871)(College of Publishing, Beijing Institute of Graphic Communication, Beijing, 102600)(Department of Information Management, Peking University, Beijing, 100871
  • Received:2024-10-25 Revised:2025-07-17 Online:2026-07-13 Published:2026-07-14

摘要:

剖析了学术图书的概念及内涵 ;梳理了我国人文社会科学图书评价的研究主题包含专题评价研究、学术影响力评价研究、替代计量学评价方法研究、同行评议研究、外译图书研究以及针对学术图书评价的研究综述六类 ;分析了文献计量、替代计量、同行评议三类评价方法使用的指标、工具及主要应用成果 ;归纳总结了学术影响力、社会影响力、定量及定性相结合的评价体系及指标权重分配等研究热点,并对相关研究案例进行对比,发现当前人文社会科学学术图书评价采用的定量及定性评价方法均存在一定的局限性、客观评价数据获取难度较大、评价体系的实用性尚待提高,针对这些问题,提出了使用综合评价、规范数据来源、兼顾评价体系的通用性和专用性等建议。

Abstract: This article analyzes the concept and essence of academic books. It categorizes the research themes in the evaluation of humanities and social sciences books in China into six types: thematic evaluation studies, academic influence assessment, altmetrics methodologies, peer review research, studies on translated editions, and research reviews on academic book evaluation. The article analyzes the indicators, tools, and key applications of three evaluation approaches: bibliometrics, altmetrics, and peer review. It synthesizes research hotspots including academic impact, societal influence, quantitative-qualitative integrated evaluation systems, and weight assignment of indicators. By comparing relevant case studies, it concludes that both quantitative and qualitative methods currently adopted in humanities and social sciences book evaluation exhibit limitations, with significant challenges in obtaining objective evaluation data and enhancing the practicality of evaluation systems. To address these issues, recommendations are proposed, including adopting comprehensive evaluation approaches, standardizing data sources, and balancing the universality with the specificity of evaluation systems.

中图分类号: