综述Overview

The library has been called "a university without walls" and "a temple of knowledge." Borges once said: "I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library." A country's library system is both a public space where citizens acquire knowledge and pursue lifelong learning and a cultural-memory repository that preserves classics and carries forward the cultural lineage. From the private book collection of Fan Qin's "Tianyi Pavilion" in the Ming Dynasty, to the national book repositories of the "Wenyuan Pavilion" and "Wenjin Pavilion" housing the Siku Quanshu in the Qing Dynasty, and on to the modern public libraries open to all citizens free of charge, China's library enterprise has traveled a long road from "storing" to "using," and from "the exclusive preserve of scholar-officials" to "shared by all."

图书馆被称为"没有围墙的大学"与"知识的殿堂"。博尔赫斯曾言："我心里一直在暗暗设想，天堂应该是图书馆的模样。"一个国家的图书馆体系，既是国民获取知识、终身学习的公共空间，也是保存典籍、赓续文脉的文化记忆库。从明代范钦"天一阁"的私家藏书楼，到清代"文渊阁""文津阁"《四库全书》的国家书库，再到现代面向全民免费开放的公共图书馆，中国的图书馆事业走过了一条从"藏"到"用"、从"士大夫专享"到"全民共享"的漫长道路。

This index uses the four-dimensional "Scale + Quality + Innovation + Contribution" framework to evaluate 22 major public libraries, university libraries, and the national library: Scale (collection size and floor area) measures the carrying capacity of literature and space; Quality (ancient books and special collections) measures the classical lineage and cultural depth; Innovation (digital resources and smart-library level) measures the capacity for transformation in the digital age; and Contribution (annual service visits and free admission) measures the inclusiveness of public cultural services. These four dimensions complement one another to form a multi-dimensional depiction of a library's value.

本指数以"规模 + 质量 + 创新 + 贡献"四维框架，对全国主要公共图书馆、高校图书馆与国家图书馆共 22 家进行评价：规模（馆藏量、建筑面积）衡量文献与空间的承载能力；质量（古籍与特色馆藏）衡量典籍文脉与文化底蕴；创新（数字资源、智慧化水平）衡量数字化时代的转型能力；贡献（年服务人次、免费开放）衡量公共文化服务的普惠程度。四者相辅相成，构成对图书馆价值的多维刻画。

Evaluation results: the National Library of China, Shanghai Library, Guangzhou Library, Nanjing Library, and Shenzhen Library rank in the top five. Overall, comprehensive large libraries with rich collections, abundant ancient books, leading digital transformation, and a broad service population rank highest; historically and culturally significant large libraries that excel in ancient-book holdings occupy important positions through the "quality" dimension; and urban public libraries that excel in high service visits stand out through the "contribution" dimension. University libraries serve mainly their own faculty and students, and their "contribution" standard differs from that of public libraries, so the rankings reflect this objective difference. All ranking data are based on approximate values from public common knowledge, marked "subject to official sources," permanently free and public, for research and reference only.

评价结果：中国国家图书馆、上海图书馆、广州图书馆、南京图书馆、深圳图书馆位列前五。整体看，馆藏雄厚、古籍丰富、数字转型领先且服务人群广泛的综合型大馆居前；以高古籍存量见长的历史文化大馆凭借"质量"维度占据重要位次；以高服务人次见长的城市公共馆依靠"贡献"维度脱颖而出。高校图书馆服务对象以本校师生为主，其"贡献"口径与公共图书馆不同，排名反映的是这一客观差异。本排名数据以公开常识近似值为基础，标注"以官方为准"，永久免费公开，仅供研究与参考。

分层梯队Tiers

A++ 前三Top 3 A+ 四至十4th–10th A 十一至二十11th–20th B 其余Rest ■ 国家馆 ■ 公共馆 ■ 高校馆

22 家图书馆排名Ranking of 22 Libraries

排名	图书馆	综合得分	馆藏(万)	建筑(万㎡)	古籍(万)	数字(TB)	服务(万)	梯队
1	中国国家图书馆National Library of China国家馆	90.33	4000	28.0	280	2600	560	A++
2	上海图书馆Shanghai Library公共馆	74.8	5000	20.0	170	1500	780	A++
3	广州图书馆Guangzhou Library公共馆	40.55	1000	9.8	50	600	1100	A++
4	南京图书馆Nanjing Library公共馆	37.64	1200	7.8	160	700	300	A+
5	深圳图书馆Shenzhen Library公共馆	35.77	1000	5.0	40	900	700	A+
6	浙江图书馆Zhejiang Library公共馆	33.34	1000	5.5	120	600	380	A+
7	广东省立中山图书馆Sun Yat-sen Library of Guangdong Province公共馆	33.24	1000	7.0	110	500	420	A+
8	湖北省图书馆Hubei Provincial Library公共馆	30.17	1000	10.0	90	450	350	A+
9	山东省图书馆Shandong Provincial Library公共馆	27.74	1000	6.5	90	420	320	A+
10	北京大学图书馆Peking University Library高校馆	25.98	1200	5.3	150	700	120	A+
11	天津图书馆Tianjin Library公共馆	24.53	1000	5.5	90	350	260	A
12	首都图书馆Capital Library of China公共馆	24.29	1000	5.0	60	450	300	A
13	四川省图书馆Sichuan Provincial Library公共馆	22.01	700	8.5	70	380	300	A
14	苏州图书馆Suzhou Library公共馆	16.76	600	4.5	60	300	280	A
15	武汉大学图书馆Wuhan University Library高校馆	13.79	1000	6.5	80	500	90	A
16	中山大学图书馆Sun Yat-sen University Library高校馆	13.66	1000	6.0	90	480	85	A
17	浙江大学图书馆Zhejiang University Library高校馆	13.38	1000	6.0	70	500	95	A
18	上海交通大学图书馆Shanghai Jiao Tong University Library高校馆	8.47	700	7.0	50	450	100	A
19	复旦大学图书馆Fudan University Library高校馆	7.73	600	4.5	60	550	100	A
20	清华大学图书馆Tsinghua University Library高校馆	7.7	600	5.0	40	600	110	A
21	中国人民大学图书馆Renmin University of China Library高校馆	6.31	800	5.0	50	400	80	B
22	南京大学图书馆Nanjing University Library高校馆	4.13	700	5.0	60	380	70	B

表中"馆藏"为馆藏总量（万册件）、"建筑"为建筑面积（万平方米）、"古籍"为古籍与特色馆藏（万册件）、"数字"为数字资源总量（TB）、"服务"为年服务人次（万人次，到馆读者）。以上均为公开常识近似值，以官方为准。高校图书馆"服务人次"口径为其馆读者（师生）人次，与公共图书馆面向全民的口径不同，横向比较时请留意。
In the table, "holdings" is total holdings (10,000 volumes/items), "building" is floor area (10,000 square meters), "ancient books" is ancient books and special collections (10,000 volumes/items), "digital" is total digital resources (TB), and "services" is annual service visits (10,000 person-times, in-library readers). All of the above are public approximate values, subject to official figures. For university libraries, the "service visits" basis is the visits of their own readers (faculty and students), which differs from the public-library basis serving the whole population; please note this when making horizontal comparisons.

算法详细论述Methodology

一、评价依据与理论来源

The theoretical foundations of library evaluation are deeply rooted in the core consensus of the world library enterprise and China's millennia-old tradition of book collection:

图书馆评价的理论根基，深植于世界图书馆事业的核心共识与中国千年的藏书传统：

阮冈纳赞"图书馆学五定律"（1931）：书是为了用的、每个读者有其书、每本书有其读者、节省读者的时间、图书馆是一个生长着的有机体——本算法"服务人次""数字资源"维度直接对应"书是为了用的"与"生长着的有机体"。
联合国教科文组织/国际图联（UNESCO/IFLA）《公共图书馆宣言》（1994，2022 修订）：公共图书馆是"通往知识之门"，应"对所有公民免费开放"——为"贡献（免费开放、普惠服务）"维度提供国际法理依据。
《中华人民共和国公共图书馆法》（2018）：明确公共图书馆"向社会公众免费开放""保障公民基本文化权益"——为贡献维度提供国内法律依据。
中国藏书楼传统：明代范钦"天一阁"（现存最古私家藏书楼，以"书藏于楼、楼藏于市"著称）、清代《四库全书》七阁（文渊、文津、文源、文溯、文宗、文汇、文澜）——为"质量（古籍与特色馆藏）"维度提供文化底蕴依据。
全民阅读与书香社会建设：《全民阅读促进条例》及历年"全民阅读"写入政府工作报告——为公共文化服务贡献的度量提供现实依据。
智慧图书馆与数字化：国家"十四五"文化发展规划提出"加快数字化建设、推动智慧图书馆"——为"创新（数字资源、智慧化）"维度提供政策依据。

二、模型的数学结构

This model adopts weighted summation (linear weighting), and first log-transforms and then standardizes the large-span indicators in the scale and contribution categories to avoid top-tier monopoly:

本模型采用加权求和（线性加权），并将规模类、贡献类大跨度指标先取对数再标准化，避免头部垄断：

σ(x) = (x − x_min) / (x_max − x_min)

Here σ(·) is the min-max standardization function, which maps each indicator uniformly to the 0-1 interval. The two indicators of collection size and service visits have excessively large spans (collections from 6 million to 50 million, and service from 0.7 million to 11 million visits), so they are first log-transformed (base 2) and then standardized:

其中 σ(·) 为 min-max 标准化函数，将各指标统一映射至 0–1 区间。馆藏量、服务人次两项跨度过大（馆藏 600 万至 5000 万、服务 70 万至 1100 万人次），先取以 2 为底的对数再标准化：

馆藏′ = σ(log₂(馆藏量))　　·　　服务′ = σ(log₂(服务人次))

The log transformation embodies the law of diminishing marginal returns: the gain from increasing a collection from 6 million to 12 million is greater than the gain from increasing it from 40 million to 50 million; the same applies to service visits. This prevents a few "super-large libraries" from forming a monopolistic advantage on any single indicator.

对数处理体现边际递减规律：馆藏从 600 万增至 1200 万的增益，大于从 4000 万增至 5000 万的增益；服务人次同理。这避免了个别"超大馆"在单一指标上形成垄断性优势。

综合得分 = 100 × [ 0.22·馆藏′ + 0.08·建筑′ + 0.20·古籍′ + 0.20·数字′ + 0.30·服务′ ]

The five weights sum to 1, mapped to a 0-100 score. The correspondence to the four-dimensional framework is: Scale = collection 0.22 + building 0.08 = 0.30; Quality = ancient books 0.20; Innovation = digital resources 0.20; Contribution = service 0.30.

五项权重之和为 1，映射为 0–100 分。四维框架对应关系为：规模 = 馆藏 0.22 + 建筑 0.08 = 0.30；质量 = 古籍 0.20；创新 = 数字 0.20；贡献 = 服务 0.30。

三、指标与权重依据

指标	方向	权重	维度	依据
馆藏总量	正向（对数）	0.22	规模	文献保障能力；阮冈纳赞"书是为了用的"
建筑面积	正向	0.08	规模	空间承载与阅读、活动服务能力
古籍与特色馆藏	正向	0.20	质量	典籍文脉；天一阁/《四库全书》藏书传统
数字资源	正向	0.20	创新	智慧图书馆；"十四五"数字化建设
年服务人次	正向（对数）	0.30	贡献	UNESCO/IFLA 宣言免费开放；《公共图书馆法》

The weight design highlights the two CPPPS signature dimensions of "contribution" and "quality": the contribution dimension (service visits) ranks first at 0.30, reflecting the fundamental purpose of public libraries to "serve the people and be inclusive and shared" (international rankings generally favor collection size and overlook inclusiveness); the quality dimension (ancient books and special collections) accounts for 0.20, reflecting the irreplaceable function of libraries to "preserve human cultural heritage"; innovation (digitalization) accounts for 0.20, echoing the transformation requirements of the digital age; and scale (collection + building) totals 0.30, serving as the basic capability but no longer monopolizing the weights.

权重设计突出"贡献"与"质量"两大 CPPPS 特色维度：贡献维度（服务人次）以 0.30 居首，体现公共图书馆"为人民服务、普惠共享"的根本宗旨（国际榜单普遍偏重馆藏规模而忽视普惠性）；质量维度（古籍与特色馆藏）占 0.20，体现图书馆"保存人类文化遗产"的不可替代职能；创新（数字化）占 0.20，呼应数字时代的转型要求；规模（馆藏+建筑）合计 0.30，作为基础能力但不再垄断权重。

四、口径说明与公平性处理

There is an essential difference between the service targets of university libraries and public libraries: public libraries are open free of charge to all citizens, and service visits are counted as "annual on-site reader visits," which are naturally larger; university libraries mainly serve their own faculty and students, and service visits are counted as "annual library-entry reader visits (including faculty and students)," with a smaller base. This algorithm preserves this objective difference — the "contribution" dimension is precisely meant to measure a library's contribution to the inclusiveness of public culture, so the lower scores of university libraries on this dimension are an honest reflection, not a bias. At the same time, the accumulation of university libraries in the "quality (ancient books)" and "innovation (digital resources)" dimensions is fully reflected, ensuring that their overall standing is not distorted.

高校图书馆与公共图书馆的服务对象存在本质差异：公共图书馆面向全体公民免费开放，服务人次以"年到馆读者人次"计，天然更大；高校图书馆主要服务本校师生，服务人次以"年入馆读者人次（含师生）"计，基数较小。本算法保留这一客观差异——"贡献"维度正是要度量图书馆对公共文化普惠的贡献，高校图书馆在此维度得分较低是如实反映，而非偏见。同时，高校图书馆在"质量（古籍）""创新（数字资源）"维度的积累得到充分体现，保证了其综合地位不失真。

The horizontal comparison of the three types of libraries follows a unified standard: the four indicators of collection, building, ancient books, and digital resources adopt the same criteria for all libraries; only "service visits" is naturally stratified by the different audience scopes. To facilitate readers' judgment, the ranking table has marked the category of each library (national / public / university).

三类馆的横向比较遵循统一口径：馆藏、建筑、古籍、数字资源四项对所有馆采用同一标准；仅"服务人次"因受众范围不同而天然分层。为便于读者判断，排名表已标注各馆类别（国家馆/公共馆/高校馆）。

五、数据来源与局限性

The five items of data used in this ranking — collection size, floor area, ancient books and special collections, digital resources, and service visits — are all approximate values based on public knowledge (library development statistics over the years, institutional public information, media reports, etc.), not item-by-item official audited data, uniformly marked "subject to official sources." The model is a linear weighted summation (collection and service are log-transformed) and does not include indicators that are hard to quantify, such as collection-quality ratings, talent teams, the number of reading-promotion activities, and academic-research influence; min-max standardization is sensitive to extreme values. The statistical standards for "service visits" (on-site / borrowing / activity participation) may differ among libraries. This ranking is for research and reference only and does not constitute any basis for resource allocation or policy.

本排名所采用的馆藏量、建筑面积、古籍特色馆藏、数字资源、服务人次五项数据，均为基于公开知识（历年图书馆发展统计、机构公开信息、媒体报道等）的近似值，非逐项官方审计数据，统一标注"以官方为准"。模型为线性加权求和（馆藏与服务取对数），未纳入藏书质量评级、人才队伍、阅读推广活动场次、学术研究影响力等难以量化的指标；min-max 标准化对极端值敏感。各馆"服务人次"的统计口径（到馆/借阅/活动参与）可能存在差异。本排名仅供研究参考，不构成任何资源配置或政策依据。

六、参考文献

Ranganathan, S. R.（1931）：《The Five Laws of Library Science》（图书馆学五定律）。
联合国教科文组织（UNESCO）、国际图联（IFLA）：《公共图书馆宣言》（1994；2022 修订版）。
《中华人民共和国公共图书馆法》（2018 年施行）。
《中华人民共和国文物保护法》及《全民阅读促进条例》。
中共中央办公厅、国务院办公厅：《"十四五"文化发展规划》（智慧图书馆、数字化建设）。
范钦"天一阁"（明代私家藏书楼）——中国藏书文化传统。
《四库全书》编纂与七阁庋藏（文渊阁、文津阁等）。
博尔赫斯：《关于天赐的诗》——"天堂应该是图书馆的模样"。
国家统计局、文化和旅游部：历年文化事业发展统计公报。
中国图书馆学会：历年《中国图书馆事业发展报告》。

说明Notes

本版采用"规模+质量+创新+贡献"四维加权模型：综合得分=100×[0.22·馆藏′+0.08·建筑′+0.20·古籍′+0.20·数字′+0.30·服务′]，其中馆藏′、服务′对原始值先取对数（log₂）再 min-max 标准化，以抑制超大馆的头部垄断；其余指标直接 min-max 标准化至 0–1。权重突出"贡献（服务人次，0.30）"与"质量（古籍，0.20）"两大 CPPPS 特色维度。评价对象覆盖国家图书馆、主要公共图书馆与高校图书馆共 22 家。数据为公开常识近似值，以官方为准；高校馆与公共馆的"服务人次"口径不同，排名表已标注类别。数据源公开、算法公开、可复现，保留申诉与复算通道。
This edition uses a four-dimensional weighted model of 'Scale + Quality + Innovation + Contribution': Composite Score = 100 × (0.12·log number of films + 0.18·log box office + 0.15·word-of-mouth + 0.10·awards + 0.10·genre innovation + 0.10·technology/VFX + 0.10·domestic films + 0.08·main-theme/cultural export + 0.07·industry-driven impact), with each indicator normalized to 0–1 and linearly summed; large-span scale indicators (number of films, box office) are log-transformed to avoid top-heavy concentration. Data are public approximate values, subject to official figures; the word-of-mouth, awards, innovation, and contribution dimensions contain subjective scoring components and carry some error. The ranking covers roughly 20 major Chinese film companies, with data as of 2026-10-20. This ranking does not copy any public ranking's placements; weights, algorithm, and data sources are all public and reproducible. It is permanently free and public, and will never sell rankings.

图书馆评价Library Evaluation