China's rapid ascent in global research output has brought its distinctive approach to scholarly publishing into sharper focus. With institutions like the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) shaping policies, the country is redirecting resources toward domestic infrastructure while curtailing support for certain high-cost international open access models.

Background on China's Research and Publishing Ecosystem

China has become the world's largest producer of scientific papers, with researchers affiliated with Chinese institutions contributing a significant share of global output. This growth stems from substantial public investment through bodies such as the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) and NSFC, established in 1986 as the primary funder for basic research. Universities and research institutes across the country, from Tsinghua University to regional medical colleges, operate under evaluation systems that emphasize publication volume and impact.

Scholarly publishing in China features a mix of domestic platforms like China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang Data alongside international outlets. Many national journals, often sponsored by scholarly societies or universities, charge authors modest publication fees while providing free reader access online. This hybrid model differs from standard international frameworks and has prompted discussions about its alignment with global open access norms.

The CAS Policy Shift on Article Processing Charges

In early 2026, the Chinese Academy of Sciences signaled plans to restrict funding for article processing charges (APCs) in more than 30 high-cost international open access journals. Affected titles include Nature Communications, Cell Reports, and Science Advances. The policy, expected to take effect around March 2026, bars researchers from using CAS funds or other central government sources, including those from MOST and NSFC, for these fees.

APCs represent the primary revenue model for many gold open access journals, where authors or their institutions pay to make articles freely available immediately upon publication. CAS, the world's largest research institution with over 50,000 researchers across roughly 100 institutes, views these charges as excessive. The move aligns with broader efforts to promote self-reliance in science and technology.

International observers note that this decision could reduce submissions from Chinese authors to these outlets, potentially impacting publisher revenues. Some analysts estimate losses in the tens of millions of dollars for certain portfolios if submission flows shift noticeably.

Domestic Journal Development and the Excellence Action Plan

Parallel to restrictions on international APCs, China has accelerated creation of new domestic journals through the Excellence Action Plan. Launched under the China Association for Science and Technology (CAST), the initiative has funded over 120 new titles, many in English, with additional selections in 2025. These journals aim to compete globally for authorship and citations while operating under models that often feature lower author fees and immediate free access for readers.

This push supports diamond open access approaches, where neither readers nor authors face significant charges, funded instead through institutional or governmental support. Chinese administrators and publishers are guiding more journals toward this model to address concerns over predatory publishing and high APC costs.

Photo by Zalfa Imani on Unsplash

Research Integrity Challenges and Retraction Trends

China's publishing surge has coincided with elevated rates of retractions. Analyses of major publishers indicate that papers with Chinese affiliations account for more than half of retractions in recent samples, despite representing about 16.5 percent of global output. A nationwide audit initiated by the Ministry's Department of Science, Technology, and Informatization required universities to declare all retractions and investigate misconduct cases.

Factors cited include intense pressure to publish for career advancement, funding, and institutional rankings, alongside issues with image manipulation, plagiarism, and data concerns. Small hospitals and medical universities feature prominently in high-retraction lists. Funders like NSFC have long maintained open access deposit requirements for funded research, with manuscripts to be made available within 12 months.

These integrity efforts aim to strengthen credibility while redirecting focus toward quality domestic outlets.

Implications for Chinese Higher Education Institutions

Universities and research administrators in China face adjustments in how they allocate resources and evaluate faculty. Policies discouraging high-APC international publishing may steer researchers toward domestic journals or lower-cost options. This shift could influence hiring, promotion, and grant decisions at institutions nationwide.

Library budgets and institutional repositories play key roles in supporting green open access deposits. The emphasis on self-reliance encourages development of local platforms and reduces reliance on foreign publishers for dissemination.

Perspectives from Stakeholders

Chinese researchers express mixed views: some welcome lower costs and alignment with national priorities, while others worry about reduced visibility in high-impact international venues. University administrators highlight opportunities to build capacity in domestic publishing and improve research integrity oversight.

International publishers note potential revenue impacts but also opportunities for partnerships or adjusted pricing. Global open access advocates see the developments as a reminder that transitions must account for diverse national systems and funding realities.

Future Outlook and Broader Global Context

China's approach underscores tensions in the global shift to open access. While the country supports open science principles through mandates and repositories, its actions challenge the APC-dominated gold model. Continued investment in domestic journals and integrity measures could reshape how Chinese research reaches audiences worldwide.

Observers anticipate further evolution as the 15th Five-Year Plan integrates science, technology, and talent development. Collaboration between Chinese institutions and international partners may adapt to these new realities, fostering more balanced global scholarly communication.

Photo by Planet Kuo on Unsplash

Practical Considerations for Academics and Administrators

Researchers in China should review funder guidelines on APC eligibility and explore diamond or institutional-supported options. Administrators can support training on research integrity and guide submissions toward aligned outlets. International colleagues may benefit from understanding these dynamics when collaborating on joint projects.

Resources like institutional repositories and national platforms offer pathways to compliant dissemination. Monitoring policy updates from CAS, NSFC, and MOST remains essential for navigating the evolving landscape.