The National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences announced on 27 March 2026 that it would cease updating and releasing its influential Journal Classification Table starting in 2026. This move marks the end of a system that has shaped research assessment across Chinese universities and research institutions for more than two decades.

The decision aligns with broader national efforts to move away from over-reliance on journal-based metrics and toward evaluations that prioritize the intrinsic quality of research, its innovation, and its societal contributions. The 2025 edition will stand as the final official release.

Background of the CAS Journal Classification System

Developed by the National Science Library under the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Journal Classification Table categorized journals indexed in Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports into partitions based on impact factors and citation data. It provided both broad category and subcategory rankings and served as a key reference for universities when assessing faculty performance, promotions, and funding allocations.

Since its introduction in 2004, the system helped address disparities in citation practices across disciplines within China’s research community. The latest available version covers data through 2025, after which no further updates will occur.

Official Announcement and Policy Details

In its statement, the CAS National Science Library clarified that the termination is permanent rather than a temporary suspension. The library emphasized that it will continue to study academic evaluation methods but will no longer compile or authorize journal rankings. Any rankings issued by other organizations after this date have no official connection to the CAS Library.

This policy change reflects ongoing reforms in China’s research ecosystem aimed at reducing “journal centrism” and encouraging more holistic assessment practices.

Reasons Driving the Termination

Chinese authorities and academic leaders have increasingly recognized that heavy dependence on citation metrics can incentivize questionable research practices and publication strategies that prioritize quantity over substance. The termination supports national goals of fostering high-quality, original research that addresses real societal needs.

University administrators and researchers have noted that the previous system sometimes led to pressure to publish in high-impact journals regardless of the work’s relevance or depth, contributing to concerns about research integrity.

Photo by Christian Lue on Unsplash

Implications for Chinese Universities and Researchers

Universities across China, including leading institutions such as Tsinghua University and Peking University, must now adapt their internal evaluation frameworks. Faculty hiring, tenure decisions, and grant applications will require new criteria that assess research quality directly rather than relying on journal partitions.

Early reactions from academics suggest a mix of relief and uncertainty. Many welcome the shift toward recognizing diverse forms of scholarly contribution, while others call for clear guidance on replacement metrics during the transition period.

Shift Toward Quality-Focused Evaluation

The move supports China’s broader push for responsible research assessment. Institutions are exploring indicators that include peer review quality, data sharing, mentorship contributions, and real-world impact. This aligns with international discussions on moving beyond narrow quantitative measures.

Researchers are encouraged to focus on the substance of their work, including interdisciplinary collaboration and engagement with industry or policy communities.

Stakeholder Perspectives

University leaders have expressed support for the reform while stressing the need for phased implementation to avoid disruption in ongoing evaluation cycles. Early-career researchers see potential for greater recognition of innovative but lower-citation work.

Funding agencies and government bodies are expected to issue supplementary guidance to ensure consistency across institutions.

Comparison with Global Trends

China’s decision echoes principles outlined in the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the Leiden Manifesto, which advocate for responsible use of metrics. While China has not formally signed these declarations, the policy direction shows convergence with global best practices.

Other countries have implemented similar reforms, replacing journal rankings with narrative assessments or balanced scorecards that value multiple dimensions of research excellence.

Photo by James Yarema on Unsplash

Future Outlook and Next Steps

The CAS Library has indicated it will continue research into improved evaluation methodologies. Universities are forming working groups to develop institution-specific frameworks that maintain rigor while reducing metric-driven pressures.

Long-term success will depend on transparent communication and training for evaluators to apply qualitative judgment consistently.

Impact on Academic Publishing and Careers

Publishing strategies may evolve as researchers prioritize journals and outlets that best match the substance of their findings rather than partition rankings. Career advancement will increasingly reward demonstrated impact through citations, patents, policy influence, and community engagement.

This transition offers an opportunity to strengthen research integrity across China’s higher-education sector.