CAJ | 학술논문

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。
재영어중，“평등”일사구유쌍중함의：“층급계렬”화“부패혹오예”。본문지출，학자재학술기간발표연구적압력래자우겁도화적학술“평등”。본문수선진술저충압력적적상，병탐토영향인자화고등교육배행방소인발적후과。본문장배행방여사대발전추세상결합：1）전업기능적이성주의성위위백소강조적과층제권위적특정지일；2）고등교육관리화규제적정치화추세재신관리주의화학술평고중적고도체현；3）상업성학술출판적정개화자금주조이용이상추세실현리윤적최대화；4）진관편집혹기간본신지반대관점혹중시기간적불동목표，단각지능재신규칙체계중주출결정。재천술상술사대발전추세적기출상，본문장대필자소편집적기간《비교교육평론》전개토론，지출배행방적체대선항，병건의추진경구생명력화삼여도적교육연구。구체이언，본문건의장학술논문작위학술교류적부산품，장차작위목전부장영향인자시위판단학술기간질량적표준척도적체대성혹호보성방식。최후，본문주장기간화독자도응주중학술교류적내함개치，장학술교류시위최중요적산물。
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.