学术知识的生产、传播与发展离不开学术交流。作为正式学术交流的一个主要载体，学术期刊系统在现代学术系统中发挥着至关重要的作用。学者通过在学术期刊发表学术论文从而受到学术同行的关注，发文量与被引数在很大程度上决定着学者在学术共同体中的可见度。看似由学者自主决定的引用行为其实并没有理想中的那么平等和开放，而是深深地嵌入在以院系为基础的学术系统之中，显示出鲜明的权力与等级特征。本研究以发表2篇及以上学术论文为标准，在《社会学研究》学术期刊2000年至2010年中筛选出101位中国大陆学者作为样本，在他们发表的285篇学术论文中整理学者间的互引情况，建立矩阵，运用社会网络分析的理论与方法进行量化分析。研究表明，在发文数、被引数和引用数方面，学者和院系之间都具有较大的离散度；不同层次院系学者之间基于互引的学术交流网络存在明显的边界，形成了特定的学术交流圈子，促进或阻碍着不同位置学者的学术交流；学者和院系所拥有的社会资本存量亦具有明显的差异，这些差异对不同学者的学术生涯产生着重要影响；院系作为学者的身份标识，其声誉影响着学者的学术认可，存在着功能泛化的现象。

The production, transmission and development of academic knowledge depends on the academic exchange. As a key carrier of formal academic exchange, the academic periodical system plays an important role in the modern academic system. Scholars will be paid attention by their peers through publication in periodicals, and the amounts of publications and citations cited by their peers influence their visibility in the academic community. The seemingly independent citing behaviors are not equal and open as what is expected, but is deeply embedded in the structure of the academic system based on the department, which takes on obvious characteristics of power and hierarchy. Selecting 101 scholars in Chinese Mainland from the authors who publish 2 or more essays in Sociological Studies from 2000 to 2010, then using the theory and methods of social network analysis to analyze the inter-citation quantitatively, following results are found, there is a high degree of dispersion between the number of the essays published, the number of the cited and the number of citing others; an obvious boundary lies in the academic exchange network based on the inter-citation among scholars from different level colleges or departments, and some specific academic exchange circles are formed, which improves or impedes the academic exchange between different scholars; the amounts of social capital of scholars and their departments are discrete deeply, which impacts the academic careers of different scholars; as the identity symbol, department’s reputation is connected directly with the academic recognition from other scholars, which is being generalized too much.