学术会议活动在国家创新体系建设、学科交流与发展、科研人员成长过程中扮演着极为重要的角色。针对传统学术会议质量评价方法中存在的学术性要素不突出、适用领域狭窄等问题，提出了一种综合采用参会者定性反馈、会议定量特征分析、会议影响力大数据分析等评价信息源的质量评价框架，并对2018年举办的700余场国内学术会议开展了质量综合评价实践。结果表明，中国学术会议呈规模持续增长、内容质控愈发严格、互动交流效果进一步突出、成果类型及传播方式进一步丰富等趋势，但不同学科、不同规模学术会议间质量差异较为显著，不同职称、不同国籍参会者对会议质量的感知存在明显差别。根据评价结果，从面向参会者诉求、优化会议组织及完善学会机制建设等方面提出了学术会议的质量提升建议。
Academic conferences play a very important role in the construction of national innovation system, development of disciplines and growth of scientific researchers. In recent years, the overall scale of China's academic conference activities has increased rapidly but problems such as uneven quality and lack of standards have become increasingly obvious. Therefore, conference organizers, managers and participants urgently need an evaluation means to judge the quality of academic conferences. In view of the problems of the traditional academic conference quality evaluation methods, such as lack of prominent academic elements and narrow application fields, this study proposes a quality evaluation framework which comprehensively uses the evaluation information sources including participants' qualitative feedback, quantitative characteristics data of the conference, and social influence big data analysis, and conducts a comprehensive quality evaluation covering more than 700 academic conferences held in China in 2018. The results indicate that the scale of academic conferences in China is increasing continuously, that the quality control of content is stricter and the effect of interactive communication is more prominent, and that the types of outcome and dissemination methods are further enriched. However, there are significant differences in quality among academic conferences of different disciplines and scales. And there are obvious differences in the perception of conference quality among participants of different titles and nationalities. According to the evaluation results, this paper proposes three ways to improve the quality of China's academic conferences, that is, considering the demands of participants, optimizing conference organization, and improving the mechanism of the academic society.
[1] 中国科学技术协会. 学术会议质量评估报告(2017)[M]. 北京:中国科协, 2018:12.
[2] 中国科协学会服务中心. 中国科协全国学会发展报告(2017)[R]. 北京:中国科协学会服务中心, 2017.
[3] Loizides O S, Koutsakis P. On evaluating the quality of a computer science/computer engineering conference[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2017, 11(2):541-552.
[4] Küngas P, Karus S, Vakulenko S, et al. Reverse-engineering conference rankings:what does it take to make a reputable conference?[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 96(2):651-665.
[5] Nelakuditi S, Gray C, Choudhury R R. Snap judgement of publication quality:How to convince a dean that you are a good researcher[J]. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review, 2011, 15(2):20-23..
[6] Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia. Conference rank (a*, a, b, c) from computing research and education association of Australasia (2018)[EB/OL].[2019-09-17]. http://portal.core.edu.au/conf-ranks/?search=&by=all&source=CORE2018&sort=arank&page=1.
[7] Brazilian Classification System for Conferences and Journals. Conference rank from Brazilian classification system for conferences and journals (2016)[EB/OL].[2019-09-17]. https://www.capes.gov.br/images/documentos/Qualis_periodicos_2016/Qualis_conferencia_ccomp.pdf.
[8] Microsoft. Microsoft academic-conference analytics-all topics (2018)[EB/OL].[2019-09-17]. https://academic.microsoft.com/#/conferences/0/.
[9] Lebas M, Euske K. A conceptual and operational delineation of performance[J]. Business Performance Measurement:Unifying Theories and Integration Practice, 2007:125-139.
[10] Cacamese S M, Eubank K J, Hebert R S, et al. Conference attendance and performance on the in-training examination in internal medicine[J]. Medical Teacher, 2004, 26(7):640-644.
[11] Rittichainuwat B N, Beck J A, Lalopa J. Understanding motivations, inhibitors, and facilitators of association members in attending international conferences[J]. Journal of Convention & Exhibition Management, 2001, 3(3):45-62.
[12] Severt D, Wang Y, Chen P J, et al. Examining the motivation, perceived performance, and behavioral intentions of convention attendees:Evidence from a regional conference[J]. Tourism Management, 2007, 28(2):399-408.
[13] Mair J, Thompson K. The UK association conference attendance decision-making process[J]. Tourism Management, 2009, 30(3):400-409.
[14] Draper J, Neal J A. Motivations to attend a non-traditional conference:Are there differences based on attendee demographics and employment characteristics?[J]. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 2018, 19(4-5):347-373.
[15] Mair J, Lockstone-Binney L, Whitelaw P A. The motives and barriers of association conference attendance:Evidence from an Australasian tourism and hospitality academic conference[J]. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 2018, 34:58-65.
[16] 杨文志. 论多学科综合性学术会议的质量评价[J]. 学会, 1992(Z1):79-82.
[17] 马敬安. 探索和建立学术会议的质量评估体系[J]. 学会, 1996(9):13-13.
[18] 中国科学院研究生院课题组. 学术会议效果评价指标体系研究[C]//学术交流质量与科技研发创新研究. 北京:中国科学技术协会学会学术部, 2009:238-290.
[19] 游媛. 学术交流质量评价指标体系的构建研究[D]. 重庆:重庆大学公共管理学院, 2012.
[20] 肖建华, 霍国庆, 董帅, 等. 基于平衡计分卡的学术会议效果评价指标体系研究[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2009, 30(12):48-54.
[21] 李新杰. 基于改进的ACSI模型的学术会议质量评价实证研究[J]. 中原工学院学报, 2017, 28(2):66-72.
[22] 《学术会议质量国内外比较研究》 课题组. 学术会议质量国内外比较研究[C]//学术交流质量与科技研发创新研究. 北京:中国科学技术协会学会学术部, 2009:12-105.
[23] 郑毅, 刘文斌, 宋泽宁. 组织结构视角下我国学术会议绩效评价管理研究[J]. 科研管理, 2020, 41(3):194-204.
