| 查看: 100 | 回复: 0 | |||
[交流]
173、Reconstructing the Global Dynamic Evaluation System for Academic Journals
|
|
preprint of cern doi :10.5281/zenodo.21386050 or https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21386050 my academic identifier: orcid id: 0009-0005-2185-5790. you may go to the official academic website to retrieve and view relevant research content. readers may copy this number to search on the official zenodo website (search by english title or english keywords) to view the full english and chinese pdf texts. Abstract For decades, the global academic evaluation system has heavily relied on the impact factor and short-term citation counts as core criteria for journal ranking and research output assessment. Long-term operation of this framework has exposed structural, institutional and resource-related drawbacks. Rampant mutual citation among academic cliques, a flood of repetitive trivial studies occupying journal space, and the lack of retrospective accountability for erroneous publications collectively lead to massive waste of public research funds sourced from taxpayers across all nations. A unified reform consensus has emerged within the global academic community, represented by the DORA Declaration, the Leiden Manifesto and the CoARA reform alliance. These international frameworks advocate for a gradual reduction of weighting assigned to citation metrics, greater emphasis on long-term scientific value, and enhanced transparency of evaluation criteria. This paper proposes a new globally applicable journal evaluation system featuring phased dynamic weighting, multi-cycle retrospective review, standardized transparency and reputation-based self-regulation. The core reform logic avoids drastic one-step adjustments and adopts a staged gradient reduction of the weight assigned to impact factors and citation data. Two core dimensions — long-term scientific validity and groundbreaking original research value — dominate the scoring system, accounting for over 80% of total marks in the mature stage. A 3–5 year retrospective review mechanism is implemented to deduct points and downgrade journals that repeatedly publish outdated, flawed or non-innovative works. Meanwhile, flexible supervision is enabled through spontaneous academic scrutiny, partial public disclosure of scoring rules, and natural elimination of untrustworthy evaluation bodies based on market reputation. Instead of rigid mandatory regulation, the system relies on phased weight reduction, transparent evaluation standards, alignment with international reform guidelines and organic market screening to guide journals, conferences and evaluation institutions worldwide back to the essence of scientific inquiry. It gradually eliminates incentives for inflated citation metrics and low-quality repetitive publications, redirecting public research funding toward pioneering studies with lasting academic value. Keywords: reform of academic evaluation; dynamic journal ranking; impact factor; phased weight adjustment; optimization of research resources; groundbreaking innovation; transparent evaluation mechanism; academic credibility 1. Introduction Over the past decades, global research communities have universally adopted a quantitative evaluation model centered on impact factors and short-term citations. Journal rankings, academic conference assessments, research funding allocations and researcher performance reviews all hinge primarily on citation metrics. This single-dimensional framework depends entirely on clique-based citation data to rank journals and measure research value, without comprehensive assessment of innovation, scientific rigor, long-term disciplinary impact or efficient use of research resources. This skewed incentive structure has fostered a pervasive culture of academic stagnation. Researchers converge on well-established, mature research topics to produce incremental, repetitive papers that contribute little to disciplinary progress. Closed academic circles exchange manuscripts and mutual citations to artificially inflate journal impact factors, creating misleading perceptions of academic influence. Many journals continuously publish outdated redundant research and experimentally flawed conclusions that are later disproven, with no corresponding point deductions, accountability or downgrade mechanisms. The most severe and overlooked consequence of this system is the massive squandering of public research resources. Laboratory operations, research projects, academic conferences and manuscript production are all supported by national public finance and taxpayer funds. The existing evaluation framework channels funding disproportionately toward research fields with quick publication cycles and easy citation inflation, favoring trivial repetitive studies and clique-driven citation practices. Groundbreaking fundamental research that reshapes disciplinary paradigms requires long timelines and generates few immediate citations, receiving insufficient funding and institutional recognition. Scarce public resources are consumed inefficiently, resulting in substantial research investment paired with limited genuine scientific breakthroughs — an institutional root cause of low global research productivity. Global academic bodies have widely acknowledged these critical flaws, issuing joint reform statements that advocate gradual reduction of citation metric weighting, abandonment of overreliance on impact factors, recognition of original innovation, establishment of long-term evaluation mechanisms and improved transparency. Nevertheless, existing international reform efforts remain declarative, lacking a fully implementable framework with phased transition plans, adjustable weighting, public oversight and reputation-based self-regulation. Based on international reform consensus and widespread industry defects, this paper constructs a universal dynamic journal evaluation system. Gradual weight rebalancing, long-term retrospective audits, partial transparency protocols, spontaneous academic supervision and reputation-driven institutional elimination collectively address the structural flaws of conventional evaluation systems in a progressive, pragmatic manner. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
售SCI文章，我:8O.5.5.1O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有11人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8O.55.1.O.54,科目全,可伽急
已经有9人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有11人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O54,科目全,可伽急
已经有12人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O.5.5.1O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有9人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急
已经有9人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8O.55.1.O.54,科目全,可伽急
已经有11人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O55.1.O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有11人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急
已经有8人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有8人回复
