学术评等的光与影

Rank Scholarship

在英语中，“评等”一词具有双重涵义：“层级系列”和“腐败或污秽”。本文指出，学者在学术期刊发表研究的压力来自于极度化的学术“评等”。本文首先陈述这种压力的迹象，并探讨影响因子和高等教育排行榜所引发的后果。本文将排行榜与四大发展趋势相结合：1）专业技能的理性主义成为韦伯所强调的科层制权威的特征之一；2）高等教育管理和规制的政治化趋势在新管理主义和学术评估中的高度体现；3）商业性学术出版的定价和资金筹措利用以上趋势实现利润的最大化；4）尽管编辑或期刊本身持反对观点或重视期刊的不同目标，但却只能在新规则体系中做出决定。在阐述上述四大发展趋势的基础上，本文将对笔者所编辑的期刊《比较教育评论》展开讨论，指出排行榜的替代选项，并建议推进更具生命力和参与度的教育研究。具体而言，本文建议将学术论文作为学术交流的副产品，将此作为目前仅将影响因子视为判断学术期刊质量的标准尺度的替代性或互补性方式。最后，本文主张期刊和读者都应注重学术交流的内涵价值，将学术交流视为最重要的产物。

In English the word "Rank" has a double meaning： a "hierarchical series" and also "rotten" or "filthy." This essay considers the pressure felt by scholars publish in journals that are highly "ranked." We first document evidence for this pressure, then discuss the consequences of impact factors and ranking in higher education. We connect ranking four movements： 1） the rationalization of expertise as a feature of Weberian bureaucratic authority; 2） the politics of higher education regulation and control, as manifest in the new managerialism and associated research assessment exercises; 3） the pricing and finance of commercial scholarly publishing, which takes advantage of the preceding developments by charging decisions by editors and their journals to play by the new rules even when they when they value journals for a different purpose. After touching on these four high prices to maximize profits; 4） are personally opposed to them and movements, we discuss the journal that we edit （Comparative Education Review）. We consider the alternatives to ranking, and we suggest ways to promote a more vital and engaged educational research. Specifically, we suggest a means to judge the quality of scholarly journals that could be used as an alternative, or supplement, to the metric of the impact factor alone, by considering articles as the by-products of scholarly communication. We advocate that journals and readers attend to the intrinsic value of that communication as the most fundamental product.