本文針對三十種與社會學、社會福利及社會工作相關的學術期刊進行評比排序的工作。我們根據兩種主觀的指標，即就一百三十位社會學及社福社工學者問卷訪問中，對各列名期刊的主觀評等(水準頗高、水準尚佳、水準平平、水準略差、水準頗差、不熟悉無法評等)，和是否可以列名為夠水準的期刊，以及一項客觀指標，即三十種期刊中彼此在1989至1996年八年間互相引用，每篇的平均次數。根據這三項指標進行因素和群落分析，建構主觀評價綜合分數與排序一，以及主客觀評價綜合分數與排序二。在總體樣本與社福社工樣本的排序分析之後，我們以總樣本的分析為主，將三十種期刊分成四級，並以社工社福期樣本的結果，調整了二種社福社工期刊的排序。另外本文還以一些有關期刊開放性、評審制度以及出刊穩定性等自變項，與排序分數進行迴歸分析，以確定排序的效度。最後就期刊發行的穩定性、學校與機構的學術期刊、引用狀況以及綜合性期刊的一些問題，加以檢討並提出建議。

The paper presents the result of an evaluation on 30 academic journals in Taiwan related to sociology, social welfare and social work. There are provided two subjective indicators, the five-point ranking for the 30 journals and the yes or no judgement on whether each journal is regarded with good quality (a result of 130 scholars' questionnaire responses), and an objective indicator, the average citation frequency in the eight years 1989-1996. We construct a subjective score and Ranking 1, and a subjective-objective score and Ranking 2, in terms of factor and cluster analyses based on the three indicators. The 30 journals are classified into four categories, from rank 1 to 4 according to the analyses based on the sample of 130 scholars. The ranking is also adjusted in terms of the result based on the sample including only experts on social welfare and social work. A regression analysis is conducted to validate the ranking. Finally, there are some suggestions for the future management of journal publication and evaluation.