中国“C9”与澳大利亚“G8”联盟一流学科之比较分析——基于ESI和InCites数据库

发布时间：2018-03-03 03:25

本文选题：一流学科　切入点：“C”高校　出处：《中国高教研究》2017年06期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：借助ESI数据库和InCites数据库从科研生产力和科研影响力两方面对中国"C9"联盟高校和澳大利亚"G8"联盟高校的学科进行评价。首先,采用ESI数据库分析"C9"和"G8"高校进入ESI前1%的学科;其次,借助InCites数据库分析高校学科的科研生产力和科研影响力;最后,从整体角度分析优势学科结构分布。研究显示:"C9"和"G8"高校分别有135和151个学科进入ESI前1%,"C9"高校科研生产力已超过"G8"高校,但科研影响力却与"G8"高校存在较大差距,同时"C9"和"G8"高校分别呈现出不同的学科分布群。因此,平衡高校学科的科研生产力和科研影响力,加强机构之间的合作,能够有效地促进高等学校一流学科的建设。
[Abstract]:With the help of ESI database and InCites database, this paper evaluates the disciplines of Chinese "C9" alliance universities and Australian "G8" universities from the two aspects of scientific research productivity and scientific research influence. Firstly, the ESI database is used to analyze the subjects of "C9" and "G8" universities entering the top 1% of ESI. Secondly, with the help of InCites database, this paper analyzes the scientific research productivity and research influence of colleges and universities. The research shows that 135 and 151 subjects of "C _ 9" and "G8" universities have entered the top of ESI respectively. The scientific research productivity of "C _ 9" colleges and universities has surpassed that of "G8" universities, but there is a big gap between "C _ 9" and "G8" universities. At the same time, "C9" and "G8" universities present different subject distribution groups respectively. Therefore, balancing the scientific research productivity and scientific research influence of university disciplines and strengthening cooperation among institutions can effectively promote the construction of first-class disciplines in colleges and universities.
【作者单位】：大连理工大学高等教育研究院;
【基金】：国家社会科学基金一般项目“基于社会网络分析的大学治理有效性研究”(14BGL009) 中央高校基本科研业务费专项“基于绩效评价视角的大学治理完善机制研究”(DUT15RC(3)060) 国家自然科学基金青年项目“基于引用内容的单篇论文评价指标体系研究”(71503030)的研究成果
【分类号】：G644;G353.1

【相似文献】