Introduction Rovira-Esteva, Orero, and Franco Aixela estimate that, over the past twenty years, more than 60,000 publications—including books, journals, academic theses, and so on—have been produced in translation studies alone. Moreover, the field has seen growing research on using different approaches borrowed from linguistics and other disciplines. However, the bibliometric approach has been rarely adopted in translation studies. Most of these bibliometric studies focus narrowly on certain aspects of translation studies (e.g., Franco Aixela and Rovira-Esteva on the quality of translation studies publications, Martínez-Gómez on nonprofessional interpreting, Zhou and Sun on translation history, and Echeverri on several versions of translations studies). Conversely, other studies are concerned more closely with how the general developmental trends and foci of translation studies develop. For example, Doorslaer and Gambier studied geographical distribution and the five most frequent keywords from selected journals through the database of the online Translation Studies Bibliography (TSB). Zanettin, Saldanha and Harding investigated research interests and foci using data between 1997 and 2011 from the Translation Studies Abstracts (TSA) online database. Liang and Xu analyzed articles published from 2009 to 2013 in eight SSCI-indexed translation journals from the Web of Science online database to reveal development trends and the leading edge of translation studies. These studies analyzing some aspects or developmental trends in translation studies are significant. Although methodologically sound and thorough, they focused principally on Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI-indexed) translation journals, leaving Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI-indexed) translation journals almost completely unexplored. This is likely due to the absence of their impact factor based on the ISI Web of Knowledge or other channels. Another likely reason for the oversight of some A&HCI-indexed translation journals is their shorter history as research-oriented journals compared with that of SSCI-indexed translation journals. Furthermore, the previous studies collected data mainly through the Web of Science, TSB, or TSA databases, neglecting the other databases. Another limitation of the aforementioned studies is that they paid little attention to exploring the underlying reasons for the high academic

中文翻译：

---

2014 年至 2018 年的国际翻译研究：文献计量分析及其意义

引言 Rovira-Esteva、Orero 和 Franco Aixela 估计，在过去的 20 年中，仅翻译研究就出版了 60,000 多种出版物，包括书籍、期刊、学术论文等。此外，该领域已经看到越来越多的研究使用从语言学和其他学科借来的不同方法。然而，文献计量方法在翻译研究中很少采用。大多数这些文献计量研究都狭隘地关注翻译研究的某些方面（例如，Franco Aixela 和 Rovira-Esteva 研究翻译研究出版物的质量，Martínez-Gómez 研究非专业口译，Zhou 和 Sun 研究翻译史，以及 Echeverri 研究翻译研究出版物的几个版本。翻译研究）。反过来，其他研究更密切地关注翻译研究的总体发展趋势和焦点是如何发展的。例如，Doorslaer 和 Gambier 通过在线翻译研究书目 (TSB) 的数据库研究了地理分布和选定期刊中五个最常用的关键词。Zanettin、Saldanha 和 Harding 使用翻译研究摘要 (TSA) 在线数据库中 1997 年至 2011 年的数据调查了研究兴趣和焦点。梁和徐分析了 2009 年至 2013 年在 Web of Science 在线数据库中的八种 SSCI 索引翻译期刊上发表的文章，以揭示翻译研究的发展趋势和前沿。这些分析翻译研究的某些方面或发展趋势的研究具有重要意义。虽然方法论健全和彻底，他们主要关注社会科学引文索引（SSCI 索引）翻译期刊，而艺术和人文科学引文索引（A&HCI 索引）翻译期刊几乎完全未开发。这可能是由于缺乏基于 ISI Web of Knowledge 或其他渠道的影响因子。一些 A&HCI 索引翻译期刊受到监管的另一个可能原因是，与 SSCI 索引翻译期刊相比，它们作为研究型期刊的历史较短。此外，以前的研究主要通过 Web of Science、TSB 或 TSA 数据库收集数据，而忽略了其他数据库。上述研究的另一个局限是他们很少关注探索高学术水平的根本原因。