对国际科学计量学与信息计量学学会2001年悉尼大会一篇稿件详细摘要的审理意见（2001年1月18日）

武夷山

REVIEWER REPORT FOR ISSI ONLY (Written comments for the ISSI Selection Panel)

Title: （略）

This work has practical value for the research institutions in developing countries that use SCI as an evaluation tool. The result of this study could influence science policy makers in the third world on what strategy they would choose to improve the scientific productivity and international impact of their respective country； to encourage scientists to send more manuscripts to international journals, or strive to improve the quality of   domestic journals and hope to get more of them accepted by ISI as source journals. Therefore this study is a significant effort.

REVIEWER REPORT FOR AUTHOR (comments to be made available to authors)

Title:  （略）

This analysis would be meaningful to many research managers in developing countries who are keen to use SCI as an evaluation tool. The author is right when he or she doubts that “more number of papers in a data base” does not necessarily mean increased scientific activity”. In fact, I urge the author to add, if possible, such an exercise: to see when scientists publish more in reputed international journals, whether or not they publish less in domestic journals. In China’s case, scientists publish more and more in both international and domestic journals. But in some fields, e.g. physics, they publish more abroad than at home.

From this abstract, it is not clear why the author chose CCI and BTCI for analysis because the “consistent criticism from a group of scientometricians” are generally focused on SCI rather than other databases of international journals. It seems that the author need to explain more in order to connect the first and second parts of the paper well.