高级检索
孙劲楠, 杨榕, 丁佐奇. “双一流”背景下高校学科科研产出评价体系研究——基于药理学与毒理学学科的实证研究[J]. 中国药科大学学报, 2022, 53(2): 245-252. DOI: 10.11665/j.issn.1000-5048.20220216
引用本文: 孙劲楠, 杨榕, 丁佐奇. “双一流”背景下高校学科科研产出评价体系研究——基于药理学与毒理学学科的实证研究[J]. 中国药科大学学报, 2022, 53(2): 245-252. DOI: 10.11665/j.issn.1000-5048.20220216
SUN Jinnan, YANG Rong, DING Zuoqi. Systematic evaluation of scientific research output for disciplines of "Double First-Class" universities:an empirical case of the discipline of pharmacology and toxicology[J]. Journal of China Pharmaceutical University, 2022, 53(2): 245-252. DOI: 10.11665/j.issn.1000-5048.20220216
Citation: SUN Jinnan, YANG Rong, DING Zuoqi. Systematic evaluation of scientific research output for disciplines of "Double First-Class" universities:an empirical case of the discipline of pharmacology and toxicology[J]. Journal of China Pharmaceutical University, 2022, 53(2): 245-252. DOI: 10.11665/j.issn.1000-5048.20220216

“双一流”背景下高校学科科研产出评价体系研究——基于药理学与毒理学学科的实证研究

Systematic evaluation of scientific research output for disciplines of "Double First-Class" universities:an empirical case of the discipline of pharmacology and toxicology

  • 摘要: 为推进一流学科建设,探索构建多维度学科评估体系,对学科发展提供建议。利用基本科学指标数据库(ESI)、InCites和Derwent Innovation Index数据库,借助极差变换法和熵权法对药理学与毒理学领域部分高校的指标数据情况进行分析,研究指标体系的构建途径和指标表现。研究表明,样本高校在指标体系中的得分与ESI排名表现不同,指标体系具有一定的实际应用价值。ESI学科排名不能完整地反映学科发展情况,多维度指标评价体系能在一定程度上克服这一缺陷。本文建立了以论文和专利为主要评价对象的评价体系,尽可能涵盖科研产出的多角度指标,弥补单一或少数指标体系的信息缺失。建议高校可从致力发表高质量原创研究成果、主导或广泛参与科研合作、加强校企合作注重成果转化、推进开放科学鼓励开放获取等角度制定学科发展计划。

     

    Abstract: To promote the construction of first-class disciplines of "Double First-Class" universities in China, the construction of a comprehensive evaluation system was explored, so as to provide suggestions for the development of these disciplines.Essential Science Indicators (ESI), InCites and Derwent Innovation Index databases, together with range transformation method and entropy weight method, were employed to analyze the data in the field of pharmacology and toxicology from some universities; the construction approaches and index performance of the system were studied. The score performances of the sample universities in the index system are different from their ESI rankings, suggesting that the system has certain practical value.ESI rankings cannot fully reflect the development levels of disciplines, while the multi-dimensional index evaluation system can overcome this shortcoming to a certain extent.This paper establishes an evaluation system with published papers and granted patents as the main evaluation objects, covering as many multi-angle indicators of scientific research output as possible, and trying to overcome the disadvantages due to lack of information in a single or few index systems.It is suggested that universities should formulate their discipline development plans from the perspectives of publishing high-quality original research results, leading or widely participating in scientific research cooperation, strengthening university-enterprise cooperation, promoting the application of research results, promoting open science and encouraging open access.

     

/

返回文章
返回