[目的/意义]开放科学运动蓬勃发展，揭示其对中国论文国际学术话语权的提升效应，并从多视角展开中国论文国际学术话语权评价，对推动中国论文在开放科学体系中高效传播、提升中国国际学术话语权具有现实意义。[方法/过程]以中国管理学论文为研究样本，融合科学计量指标、Altmetrics指标与全文本计量指标构建包含学术原创力、学术影响力、学术传播力和学术引领力四大维度的评价指标体系。采用倾向得分匹配法评估开放科学环境对中国论文国际学术话语权的提升效应，并运用CRITIC-BP、CRITIC-TOPSIS方法从单维度与综合视角评价开放科学环境下中国论文国际学术话语权，最后通过CNN完成评价结果的智能验证。[结果/结论]开放科学环境对学术认可程度、国际传播效度和领域引领力的提升效应分别为11.4、2.19与0.1。论文国际学术话语权各维
度评价结果、各维度与综合评价结果均呈显著相关性。Q1期刊论文国际学术话语权呈现高集中度趋势，中国学者参与的Q1期刊国际合作论文中，以辅助性参与为主，主导作用相对有限。

[Purpose/significance] With the vigorous development of the open science movement, uncovering its enhancement effect on the international academic discourse power of Chinese papers and conducting a multi-perspective evaluation of such discourse power holds practical significance for facilitating the efficient dissemination of Chinese papers within the open science system and enhancing their international academic discourse power. [Method/process]This paper employs Chinese management papers as the sample. It constructs an evaluation index system that encompasses four key dimensions: academic originality, academic influence, academic communication power, and academic leadership power, by integrating scientometric indicators, altmetrics, and full-text bibliometric indicators. Simultaneously, the study utilizes propensity score matching to assess the enhancement effect of the open science environment on the international academic discourse power of Chinese papers. This study adopts the propensity score matching method to evaluate the promotion effect of the open science environment on the international academic discourse power of Chinese papers. It further applies the CRITIC-BP and CRITIC-TOPSIS methods to assess such discourse power from single-dimensional and comprehensive perspectives under the open science environment, and finally conducts intelligent verification of the evaluation results via CNN. [Result/conclusion] The open science environment exerts distinct promotive effects on four key dimensions of Chinese papers. Specifically, the enhancing impacts on academic recognition level, international dissemination effectiveness, and disciplinary leadership are 11.4, 2.19, and 0.1, respectively. Significant correlations are identified both among the various dimensions of the international academic discourse power of Chinese papers and between each dimension and the comprehensive evaluation result. International academic discourse power in Q1 journal papers tends to be highly concentrated. For Chinese scholars' participation in international collaborative Q1 journal papers, supportive involvement is the main form, and their leading role remains relatively limited.