Background to China’s Journal Evaluation Reforms
For more than two decades, the Journal Classification Table compiled by the National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences served as a cornerstone of research assessment across Chinese universities and research institutes. Launched in 2004, the list categorized journals indexed in Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports into disciplinary quartiles, providing a practical benchmark for academics navigating submission choices and for institutions evaluating output.
The system gained prominence because it addressed a practical gap: Chinese researchers and administrators often struggled with cross-disciplinary comparisons of impact factors. By offering a locally adapted classification, it guided resource allocation, promotion decisions, and even institutional rankings. Universities such as Tsinghua University and Peking University, along with CAS institutes, routinely referenced the table when assessing faculty performance.
The 2026 Announcement and Its Immediate Context
On 27 March 2026, the National Science Library issued a formal statement declaring that it would no longer update or release the Journal Classification Table from 2026 onward. The 2025 edition stands as the final official version. The decision was presented not as a temporary pause but as a permanent shift, with the library committing instead to broader research on evaluation methodologies.
This move aligns with a series of national policies issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Education aimed at reducing over-reliance on quantitative journal metrics. Earlier reforms, dating back to 2016 and reinforced in 2020, discouraged the use of Science Citation Index listings and impact factors as primary criteria for recruitment, promotion, and funding. The closure of the CAS list represents the most visible institutional implementation of those directives.
Why the Change Matters for Chinese Academia
The CAS ranking influenced hiring, tenure, grant applications, and even the distribution of performance-based bonuses at hundreds of institutions. Its discontinuation creates immediate uncertainty for early-career researchers and department heads who previously used quartile placements to set publication targets. PhD candidates preparing job applications now face questions about how future employers will weigh their publication records without this familiar reference point.
At the same time, the reform responds to documented problems. Critics have long argued that heavy emphasis on journal prestige encouraged quantity over quality, contributed to paper-mill activity, and disadvantaged researchers whose work appeared in high-quality but lower-quartile outlets within their fields. The policy shift seeks to redirect attention toward the intrinsic merit of individual papers and their broader contributions.
Stakeholder Reactions Across Universities and Research Bodies
University administrators report mixed responses. Some welcome the opportunity to develop discipline-specific evaluation frameworks that incorporate peer review, citation context, and societal impact. Others express concern about the absence of a standardized national benchmark during the transition period.
Faculty members at leading institutions note that the change coincides with parallel efforts to recognize Chinese-language journals and domestic publishing venues more fully. The 2025 edition of the CAS list already reflected this trend by elevating several China-hosted titles, a direction many see as continuing even after the official ranking ends.
Photo by Cuong Duyen Ceramics on Unsplash
Emerging Alternatives and New Evaluation Tools
In the wake of the announcement, several private initiatives have appeared. Former members of the CAS team launched Xinrui Scholar, a platform that applies similar classification methods. Other lists, including updates to the Chinese Early Warning Journal List maintained by the Center of Scientometrics, continue to highlight problematic outlets.
Policy experts emphasize that the long-term goal is not simply to replace one list with another but to foster evaluation practices centered on representative works, qualitative peer assessment, and contributions to national priorities such as technological self-reliance and public health.
Implications for Publishing Strategies and Career Development
Researchers are already adjusting submission plans. Many report greater willingness to target journals that demonstrate strong disciplinary fit or societal relevance rather than chasing quartile rankings. This shift may benefit open-access and domestic journals that previously received less attention under the old metric-driven system.
For PhD students and postdoctoral researchers, the change underscores the importance of building diverse portfolios that include preprints, data sharing, and engagement with industry or policy communities. Career services at institutions such as Fudan University and Zhejiang University are updating guidance to reflect these evolving expectations.
Broader Alignment with Responsible Research Assessment
China’s decision resonates with international movements such as the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). By stepping back from journal-centric metrics, the country joins efforts in Europe and elsewhere to prioritize research quality, innovation, and real-world impact over publication venue prestige.
Observers note that the reform also supports China’s ambitions to strengthen its domestic academic publishing ecosystem. With more high-quality Chinese journals now competing on the global stage, a more pluralistic evaluation framework could help reduce dependence on foreign indexing services.
Challenges During the Transition Period
Despite the policy clarity, practical challenges remain. Universities must develop new internal guidelines quickly, and inconsistencies across institutions could create confusion for mobile academics. Funding agencies are also reviewing how to incorporate the new principles into grant review processes without creating unintended biases.
Some scholars caution that removing a widely understood reference point too abruptly risks short-term disruption, particularly for researchers in fields where citation patterns differ significantly from the natural sciences.
Future Outlook for Research Evaluation in China
Looking ahead, the emphasis is expected to shift toward multi-dimensional assessment frameworks. These may combine quantitative indicators with narrative statements, expert panels, and metrics that capture knowledge transfer and policy influence. The National Science Library’s continued work on evaluation methods suggests that new tools will emerge, even if they no longer take the form of a single national ranking.
International partners and journal publishers are watching closely. The outcome in China could influence how other large research systems approach similar reforms, particularly in emerging economies seeking to balance global standards with local priorities.
Practical Steps for Academics and Administrators
Faculty members are advised to document the quality and impact of their work through detailed research statements and to engage actively in peer-review processes. Administrators should consult with disciplinary societies when redesigning evaluation criteria to ensure they reflect field-specific norms.
Resources on responsible research assessment, including guidance from the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, are increasingly referenced in Chinese higher-education circles as institutions navigate the post-ranking landscape.