|
|
|
| Research on the Evaluation of the Social Influence of Academic Achievements in Philosophy and Social Sciences in the Open Science Environment: Theoretical Framework and Implementation Path |
| Chen Ming, Ye Jiyuan |
| School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract In the open science environment, the degree of openness and transparency of academic achievements has increased, and these achievements have received more attention from society. The evaluation of academic achievements has also shifted from a focus on results to a data- and research process-oriented approach, providing a large amount of data for comprehensively evaluating the social impact of academic achievements in philosophy and social sciences. Based on the development trends of the open science environment, this paper explores evaluation ideas and plans for the social impact of academic achievements. Grounded in the theory of knowledge transfer and transformation, it establishes a theoretical framework for evaluating the social impact of academic achievements in philosophy and social sciences in the open science environment, and explores the implementation paths for such evaluation. The research holds that the evaluation subjects need to be diversified, the evaluation objects need to be ecologically expanded, and the evaluation purpose should take social value orientation as its core. The evaluation indicators are set across three evaluation standard dimensions: the scope evaluation of social impact, the in-depth evaluation of social impact, and the relevance evaluation of social impact. Five to six secondary qualitative and quantitative indicators reflecting the social impact of academic achievements in philosophy and social sciences are each set, respectively. The evaluation method adopts a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. The evaluation system takes systematicity, operability, and value orientation as its core principles. Through a multi-level system design, it ensures the deep coupling of scientific research value and social needs.
|
|
Received: 15 April 2026
|
|
|
|
1 杨红艳, 戴鹏杰, 钱蓉, 等. 立足中国 引领学术 服务社会: 中国特色哲学社会科学学术成果评价标准体系初探[J]. 情报资料工作, 2021, 42(3): 6-14.
2 林坚. 更加重视人文社科成果转化[N]. 人民日报, 2015-12-25(7).
3 教育部印发《关于破除高校哲学社会科学研究评价中“唯论文”不良导向的若干意见》的通知[EB/OL]. (2020-12-07) [2025-03-10]. https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2020-12/15/content_5569588.htm.
4 赵艳枝, 龚晓林. 从开放获取到开放科学: 概念、关系、壁垒及对策[J]. 图书馆学研究, 2016(5): 2-6.
5 刘伟. 论哲学社会科学的特殊性[J]. 北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2021, 58(6): 5-11.
6 叶继元. 学术规范通论[M]. 2版. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社, 2017: 123.
7 耿旭, 欧阳光华. 社会影响力评价: 高校有组织科研评价的新方向[J]. 国家教育行政学院学报, 2024(2): 40-48, 59.
8 王楠, 罗珺文. 高校科研成果的非学术影响及其评估: 是什么, 为什么, 怎样做?[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2020, 38(4): 62-71.
9 Lanzillo L. The social impact assessment in social sciences and humanities: methodological issues from the Italian experience[M]// The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities: Lessons from the Italian Experience. Cham: Springer, 2018: 345-359.
10 李明, 李江, 陈铭, 等. 中文学术图书引文量与Altmetrics指标探索性分析及其启示[J]. 情报学报, 2019, 38(6): 557-567.
11 UKRI. REF impact[EB/OL]. [2025-03-18]. https://www.ukri.org/ who-we-are/research-england/research-excellence/ref-impact/.
12 VSNU, NWO, KNAW. Standard evaluation protocol 2015-2021: protocol for research assessments in the Netherlands[R/OL]. (2014-03-21) [2025-07-31]. https://zenodo.org/records/5768401.
13 Donovan C, Hanney S. The ‘payback framework’ explained[J]. Research Evaluation, 2011, 20(3): 181-183.
14 UNESCO recommendation on open science[EB/OL]. (2023-09-21) [2025-06-18]. https://www.unesco.org/en/open-science/about?hub=686.
15 DOAJ[EB/OL]. [2025-03-10]. https://doaj.org.
16 漆晨曦, 陈晓佳, 彭卉. 欧盟开放数据发展对我国公共数据资源开发利用的启示[EB/OL]. (2024-11-18) [2025-03-10]. https://finance.sina.com.cn/tech/roll/2024-11-18/doc-incwmvkv0560418.shtml.
17 arXiv[EB/OL]. [2025-03-10]. https://arxiv.org/.
18 SSRN research networks[EB/OL]. [2025-03-10]. https://www.elsevier.cn/products/ssrn-preprint-services/research-networks/.
19 中国人民大学书报资料中心. 2025年复印报刊资料转载指数发布暨预印本平台建设论坛举办[EB/OL]. (2025-04-20)[2026-03-10]. http://zlzx.ruc.edu.cn/zxnews/9433.jhtml.
20 Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science[J]. Science, 2015, 349(6251): aac4716.
21 佛山民间志愿者开展口述史 记录城市、群体记忆[EB/OL]. (2014-02-18) [2025-03-10]. http://culture.people.com.cn/n/2014/0218/c172318-24396449.html.
22 李品, 杨建林. 大数据时代哲学社会科学学术成果评价: 问题、策略及指标体系[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(16): 5-14.
23 Pedersen D B, Gr?nvad J F, Hvidtfeldt R. Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities—a literature review[J]. Research Evaluation, 2020, 29(1): 4-21.
24 de Jong S, Barker K, Cox D, et al. Understanding societal impact through productive interactions: ICT research as a case[J]. Research Evaluation, 2014, 23(2): 89-102.
25 Teece D J. Technology transfer by multinational firms: the resource cost of transferring technological know-how[J]. The Economic Journal, 1977, 87(346): 242-261.
26 Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
27 Davenport T H, Prusak L. Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know[M]. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1998.
28 方卿, 李子星, 丁靖佳. 基于“预印本+开放评议”的我国学术出版模式探析[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2024, 35(8): 1057-1065.
29 叶继元. 人文社会科学评价体系探讨[J]. 南京大学学报(哲学·人文科学·社会科学), 2010, 47(1): 97-110, 160.
30 宋丽萍, 王建芳. 开放科学环境下负责任评价实现路径研究[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2024, 50(2): 115-127.
31 王少朋, 秦雪, 杨娜, 等. 区块链技术与开放同行评议融合模式研究[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2024, 35(3): 323-328. |
|
|
|
