DOI: 10.6129/CJP.20120329
中華心理學刊 民101，54卷，4期，413-431
Chinese Journal of Psychology 2012, Vol.54, No.4, 413-431

翁儷禎（國立台灣大學心理學系）；黃怡蓉（國立台灣大學心理學系）；鄭中平（國立成功大學心理學系）

摘要

本研究延續徐嘉宏（1998）與王文中（2003）的研究，進行國內心理學門期刊之評比，此次納入評比的心理學期刊為《中華心理衛生學刊》、《中華心理學刊》、《中華輔導與諮商學報》、《本土心理學研究》、《教育心理學報》、《教育與心理研究》、《測驗學刊》、《輔導與諮商學報》、《台灣精神醫學》、《諮商與輔導學報：高師輔導所刊》、《應用心理研究》和《臨床心理學刊》共12本。本研究收集12本心理學刊主觀與客觀資料，主觀資料以問卷進行，收集期刊評鑑小組委員6人、期刊主編12人、一般心理學研究者與期刊審稿人共260位對期刊整體品質、熟悉度和期刊分項品質的意見；客觀資料則主要由研究者自行建立資料庫計算各類論文引用率。在分析比較各類指標的一致性、穩定性與代表性後，研究者以「研究人員對期刊整體評價之領域平均數」做為最後分級的依據，並參考評價時選項所代表之意義，將12本期刊評定為「優」與「良」兩級。本研究亦發現，研究人員本身的領域影響其對期刊的熟悉度、整體與分項評價甚大，各領域人員在參考研究結果時，宜多注意該領域之期刊分級結
果，適當考慮領域差異性，並將期刊特色納入考量。

關鍵詞：心理學發展、期刊評比、期刊影響係數

An Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Taiwan in 2008

Li-Jen Weng（Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University）；Yi-Jung Huang（Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University）；Chung-Ping Cheng（Department of Psychology, National Cheng Kung University）

Abstract

This study re-evaluates psychology journals in Taiwan after Hsu (1998) and Wang (2003). The evaluated journals are Archives of Clinical Psychology, Bulletin of Educational Psychology, Chinese Journal of Guidance and Counseling, Chinese Journal of Psychology, Formosa Journal of Mental Health, Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, Journal of Counseling & Guidance, Journal of Education & Psychology, Research in Applied Psychology, and The Journal of Guidance & Counseling. Evaluation is based on subjective indices and various types of objective citation indices obtained from the database constructed in this research. To form subjective indices, 6 experienced researchers, 12 journal editors, and 260 researchers and reviewers of these journals completed a questionnaire to report their opinions on academic quality, familiarity, and 5 characteristics of each journal. Considering variability of individual indices and consistency between indices, this study ranks the journals according to their average academic quality. Finally, this study classifies the 12 journals into 2 categories labeled “excellent” and “good,” which are derived from responses labels on academic quality from the questionnaire results.

The study also shows researchers in different subfields differ in their opinions to journals. Results of the study
should be interpreted with caution. The diversity of evaluations of subfields in psychology should not be ignored. Therefore, readers should judge journals according to the results in their subfield, and consider the characteristics of each journal.

Keywords: journal evaluation, journal impact factor, progress in psychology