Understanding the Dongbi Index: A New Era in Academic Journal Evaluation

China's academic landscape is undergoing a significant transformation with the introduction of the Dongbi Index (DBI), a groundbreaking metric designed to assess the influence of medical and life science journals without relying on the traditional journal impact factor (JIF). Unveiled on March 21, 2026, in Shanghai, this innovative system was developed by Dongbi Data, a Shenzhen-based technology firm, in partnership with the Institute of Medical Information & Library under the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. Led by Wu Dengsheng, founder of Dongbi Data and professor at Shenzhen University, the DBI addresses longstanding criticisms of JIF by emphasizing the quality of citations through a multidimensional approach.

The Dongbi Index constructs an extensive citation network, operating on the principle that high-quality papers preferentially cite research from other high-quality sources. Using data spanning 2023 to 2025, it categorizes over 40,000 journals into two comprehensive lists: 4,027 medical journals and 3,064 life science journals, grouped into four tiers—A (top), B, C, and D—in a pyramid structure. This reflects real-world researcher perceptions rather than raw citation counts, marking a shift toward sustainable academic influence measurement.

Wu Dengsheng explains, “We are not ‘rating’ the journals per se; our analysis is rather a reflection of how researchers actually assess journals within their fields.” This methodology promises to foster a more equitable evaluation, particularly beneficial for Chinese institutions striving to elevate their global standing.

The Flaws of Journal Impact Factor and China's Response

The journal impact factor, calculated as the average number of citations received by articles published in a journal over a specific period, has long dominated academic assessments worldwide. However, its vulnerabilities to manipulation—such as citation cartels, self-citations, and predatory publishing—have drawn sharp criticism. In China, where research output surged to lead global publications since 2018, over-reliance on JIF exacerbated issues like publication pressure, fraud, and “paper mills.”

He Huan, an associate researcher at the National Cancer Centre of China, highlights, “The impact factor had many shortcomings, including being susceptible to manipulation and lacking a Chinese perspective. These limitations had led to unfair assessments of local medical journals and research output.” Recent scandals, including high retraction rates and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) refusing exorbitant article processing charges (APCs) for top journals like Nature, underscore the urgency for reform.

China's “Breaking the Five Onlys” policy, initiated around 2020, explicitly targets this by discouraging evaluations based solely on papers published, journal titles, impact factors, rankings, or Science Citation Index (SCI) inclusion. Despite progress, implementation gaps persist, with universities still facing incentives tied to metrics. The Dongbi Index aligns with these reforms, promoting qualitative assessments amid 2026 policies punishing institutions for research misconduct.

How the Dongbi Index Operates: A Step-by-Step Breakdown

The DBI's methodology begins with aggregating vast citation data to build networks where journals are nodes and citations are edges. Advanced algorithms analyze citation patterns, prioritizing quality over quantity by weighting citations from authoritative sources higher. Journals are then clustered using quantitative models into tiers, ensuring field-specific relevance—for instance, recognizing strengths in Chinese pharmacology where local output constitutes 39% globally.

• Academic Influence: Core citation quality assessment.
• Social Influence: Altmetrics like policy citations and media coverage.
• Sustainable Influence: Long-term citation persistence.

This contrasts sharply with JIF's two-year window, which favors review articles and hot topics. By incorporating broader impacts, DBI supports China's push for “academic discourse power,” aiding universities in talent evaluation and funding allocation.

China's Dominance in Research Output: Stats and Trends

In 2025, Chinese authors contributed over 110,000 papers to ranked medical journals (21% global share), with pharmacology leading at 39%. Life sciences saw 120,000+ papers, nearly one-third worldwide, dominating subfields like food science (over 40%). Yet, only 97 of 3,064 top life science journals are Chinese (3.2%), highlighting dependency on foreign publishers like Wiley (368 journals).

West China Hospital (Sichuan University), Shenzhen University, and the National Cancer Centre exemplify institutional involvement. This output boom stems from massive R&D investment—China's surpassed the US in publications—but quality concerns persist amid retractions.South China Morning Post reports detailed stats.

Performance of Chinese Journals and Universities

Over 90 Chinese journals appear in DBI lists, but mostly lower tiers; gaps exist in allergology, pathology, etc. Top performers include those in Vita (Life Sciences Open Alliance by 15 unis including Peking University proxies). Universities like Tsinghua and Peking lead globally, with five in QS top 40 (2026), but DBI pushes domestic journal growth.

Case study: Sichuan University's West China Hospital journals gain visibility, aiding faculty promotions decoupled from JIF.

Aligning with Breaking the Five Onlys Reform

The “Breaking Five Onlys” (2020 onward) reforms evaluation by valuing contributions over metrics. DBI operationalizes this for journals, complementing CAS's APC cuts and 2026 misconduct penalties (e.g., Tianjin University fined). Universities must now prioritize peer review, societal impact.

Stakeholder Perspectives: Researchers and Policymakers

Experts praise DBI for fairness; Wu: “Provides crucial support for moving beyond... impact factor dominance.” Policymakers see it boosting “soft power.” Challenges: Adoption resistance in incentive-tied systems.

Global Comparisons and Challenges Ahead

Unlike DORA (global JIF critique), DBI is China-centric. Challenges: Validation, international acceptance. Future: Expansion to other fields, AI integration.Research Information on DBI launch.

Implications for Chinese Higher Education

For universities, DBI enables balanced evaluations, attracting talent via /research-jobs. Researchers gain from holistic metrics, reducing pressure.

Future Outlook: Toward Sustainable Academic Influence

DBI heralds a metric revolution, aligning with 15th Five-Year Plan (2026-2030) for sci-tech self-reliance. Expect more domestic journals, collaborations.

Photo by Albert Canite on Unsplash