失控的期刊評比：台灣歷史學門期刊評比的權力效應及其問題（2008－2017）

Out-of-Control Journal Rankings: A Study of Power Effects and Associated Problems on the Evaluation of Historical Journals in Taiwan, 2008-2017

曾昭鈺(Chao-Yu TSENG)

《文化實踐與社會變遷》 3期 (2020/04) Pp. 55-88

摘要

近年來科技部（2014年以前舊稱國科會）認為台灣的學術界要求國際化的呼聲越趨高漲，國內亦有強烈提升國內學術研究水準的意向。然而，科技部以國際化與提升研究水準之名，暗藏背後權力機制的運作。若以評比成果報告的發展而言，不僅一○○年度其宣稱以分數高低排名具有盲點，因此在成果報告中隱藏各期刊分數結果，而且一○五年度完全不見其研究成果報告。從實證的研究成果來看，以不同的統計工具分析發現，不論任何年度評比的結果，僅占參與期刊評比約三成的臺大與中研院期刊，不僅在一級期刊中占有顯著水準，甚至新制不論顯現臺大與中研院以外的期刊不僅原本處於弱勢，新制使得其成為一級期刊的機會越趨渺茫。若從背後的實驗、題型設計與研究方法的角度觀之，發現科技部設計的評量以及主觀問卷的抽樣具有隨意的性質，也引用國際學術評比較具爭議的影響係數作為題型設計，甚至亦發現不論客觀、主觀與品質評比，表面上具有多元的評量標準，實則三項評比彼此具有顯著相關性。更為驚人的是，科技部並未意會到作為國家行政力量所帶來的權力效應。期刊評比作為學術評鑑標準之一，應予以廢除，或至少將期刊評比與期刊資料庫回歸商業機制，學術品質才得以真正獲得提升。

關鍵字

歷史學門期刊評比 ； 台灣人文及社會科學評比 ； 知識／權力 ； 學術倫理

並列摘要

In recent years, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST, known as the National Science Council before 2014) has asserted that there is increasingly strong demand for academic internationalisation in Taiwanese academic circles, and there is consensus in Taiwan that research standards should be improved. However, there is suspicion that MOST is concealing the operations of its power mechanisms under the guise of academic internationalisation and the improvement of research standards. When it comes to journal ranking results, not only did MOST not release the scores of all journals in its 2011 reporting, but it did not even publish a 2016 report at all. Regardless of the annual results of journal rankings selected, statistical analysis in this paper demonstrates that journals published by National Taiwan University and the Academia Sinica, which account for about 30% of all evaluated journals, have many more opportunities to receive grade I compared to other journals. Also, this paper suggests that such a phenomenon is more evident if the new standard of journal evaluation is adopted. Moreover, after carrying out a detailed discussion of the experimental design, the questionnaire design, and an analysis of research methods, this paper finds that the research design is not rigorous, and that MOST adopts the controversial impact factor (IF) as an assessment criterion. In addition, there are a total of three variables - objective, subjective and quality assessment - used for the evaluation of historical journals. However, in terms of correlation analysis, the results show that the pairwise correlations between factors of three of the variables are significantly positively correlated, which signifies that the evaluation lacks diverse criteria. Nonetheless, despite being a department with administrative authority, MOST does not acknowledge its power or the fact that its journal assessments might harm the development of academic research. This paper concludes that the system of journal evaluation should be repealed, or that it should at least not be regarded as a criterion of academic quality. In this way, research standards in Taiwan are more likely to be improved.

並列關鍵字

evaluation of historical journals ； evaluation of Taiwan THCI & TSSCI journals ； knowledge/power ； academic ethics