：人文社科领域学术专著质量评价的既有方法主要为基于同行评议的定性评价与基于文献计量的定量评价，但是两种性质不同的评价方法所产生的评价结果是否存在差异值得关注和探讨。文章以人文社科领域最具代表性的历史学科为对象，对五届郭沫若中国历史学奖的获奖图书进行引文分析，并将获奖图书被引情况与同期同研究领域图书进行比较，探讨定性评价结果与文献定量评价的相关性；研究表明，同行评议结果与文献计量分析结果具有显著相关性，同行评议评选出的人文学科专著的学术影响力明显高于同期同学科领域专著，且这一差距随着时间发展日益扩大。研究结果为确立合理和有效的人文学科学术专著质量评价体系提供了参考。

Peer review and bibliometric analysis are two main methods used for evaluation of academic monographs in the field of Humanities and social sciences， but the differences of the evaluation results using two different evaluation methods should be concerned and discussed. Focus on the Chinese History monographs, the author analyzes the citations of prize-winning works of Guo Moruo Prize in Chinese History and compares the citations of the winning books with the other works in the same subject field in the same period to explore the correlation between the two evaluation methods of academic monographs and found that the results of peer review is significantly correlated with the result of bibliometric analysis. And the academic influence of academic monographs selected by peer review is significantly higher than other monographs in the same period.