國內科學教育相關期刊排序研究
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2002-09-01
Authors
張俊彥
邱貴發
林陳涌
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
花蓮市：中華民國科學教育學會
Abstract
近十年來，國內外愈來愈重視科學教育的研究，國內相關的研究人才與學術性期刊也日益增多，因此有必要針對國內科學教育相關領域的期刊進行排序研究，以幫助研究者在有限的精力與時間下，選擇較具影響力的期刊閱讀與投稿。本文除了提供目前國內科學教育相關期刊的基本資料、編輯委員會組織、和審稿概況外，並利用主觀和客觀兩種方法來評估相關期刊在科學教育研究領域的影響力及其排序。在主觀方法上，我們以期刊排序文獻中最常用到的「學者主觀評價」、「學者投稿偏好」以及「學者閱讀偏好」等三項指標；而在客觀方法上，則採用「引用文獻分析」中的「總引用次數」之指標。除了利用上述各項指標進行期刊的評估外，我們亦將這四項指標納入一綜合性指標進行分析。研究結果顯示：科學教育學刊、行政院國家科學委員會研究彙刊：科學教育、國立台灣師範大學學報：科學教育類等三本期刊在所有各項指標中均排名在前五名之列。研究結果除了幫助科學教育研究社群瞭解相關期刊的影響力外，亦可提供給有關學術或研究單位在學術期刊素質上一個較為客觀的標準。但值得注意的是，本研究旨在評估哪些與科學教育相關的期刊對科學教育研究領域而言最具有影響力及素質較佳，並不意味著這些期刊在其他一般教育領域的絕對素質及優劣程度，故在排名結果的解釋和運用上應特別小心。
For the past decade, science education research has not only gained much attention from educators and teachers throughout the world and many academic journals have been devoted to this field. In order to help researchers to shape their own journal reading and publication efforts, it is appropriate to assess and rank the relative quality of science education related journals. In this paper, we provide information on the editorial operations and manuscript-review processes of science education journals as well as journal ranking results using both subjective and objective approaches. The three subjective indicators were expert judgment, paper submission preferences, and reading preferences as revealed through a survey of researchers. The objective indicator was total number of citations. A composite indicator of quality was established by combining the indicators. The results indicated that the Chinese Journal of Science Education, Proceedings of the National Science Council Part D: Science Education, and Journal of National Taiwan Normal University: Mathematics & Science Education were consistently ranked highly irrespective of which indicators were used. The rankings provide the research community with a better understanding of which science education publication outlets are the most influential in our field and also provide an objective analysis of journal quality available to academic departments or institutes for the assessment of faculty performance. It is noted, however, that the objective of this paper was to assess the relative impacts and quality of journals in the field of science education; for that reason, the results of the current study should not be generalized to other educational research fields.
For the past decade, science education research has not only gained much attention from educators and teachers throughout the world and many academic journals have been devoted to this field. In order to help researchers to shape their own journal reading and publication efforts, it is appropriate to assess and rank the relative quality of science education related journals. In this paper, we provide information on the editorial operations and manuscript-review processes of science education journals as well as journal ranking results using both subjective and objective approaches. The three subjective indicators were expert judgment, paper submission preferences, and reading preferences as revealed through a survey of researchers. The objective indicator was total number of citations. A composite indicator of quality was established by combining the indicators. The results indicated that the Chinese Journal of Science Education, Proceedings of the National Science Council Part D: Science Education, and Journal of National Taiwan Normal University: Mathematics & Science Education were consistently ranked highly irrespective of which indicators were used. The rankings provide the research community with a better understanding of which science education publication outlets are the most influential in our field and also provide an objective analysis of journal quality available to academic departments or institutes for the assessment of faculty performance. It is noted, however, that the objective of this paper was to assess the relative impacts and quality of journals in the field of science education; for that reason, the results of the current study should not be generalized to other educational research fields.