The Roots of SCI Supremacy in Chinese Academia
In the late 1980s, China introduced the Science Citation Index (SCI), a database of high-impact scientific journals primarily published in English by Western publishers like Clarivate. Initially intended to benchmark Chinese research against global standards, SCI quickly became the gold standard for evaluation. Universities and institutions tied promotions, funding, and tenure to SCI paper counts and impact factors. This 'SCI supremacy' – or 'SCI至上' in Chinese – created a frenzy, with researchers churning out papers to meet quotas.
By the 2010s, the system distorted priorities. Basic research was judged by publication metrics rather than innovation or societal impact. Nanjing University, a pioneer in adopting SCI for degree awards, exemplifies the shift. Today, it evaluates contributions like the 'Xihe' solar probe holistically, rewarding real-world achievements over paper tallies.
This overreliance fostered 'publish or perish' but at a cost: academic misconduct, quantity over quality, and massive financial drain on public funds.
The Financial Burden of Western Journal Fees
Open Access (OA) models shifted costs from subscriptions to Article Processing Charges (APCs), often $5,000–$12,000 per paper. In 2024, Chinese authors published 313,500 OA papers – nearly one-third of the global total – paying $909 million in APCs, equivalent to funding five advanced EUV lithography machines.
CAS researchers report youth project funds (around 100,000 RMB or $14,000) exhausted by 2–3 papers, squeezing experiments. Publishers like MDPI ($682M revenue), Elsevier ($583M), and Springer Nature ($547M) boast 30%+ margins on peer-reviewed work done for free by scientists. This 'cash cow' exploits China's research boom.
For more on rising APCs, see this Chemistry World analysis.
2020 Policy: Breaking the 'Four Onlys'
The Ministry of Education and Ministry of Science and Technology's 2020 opinion targeted 'four onlys' (唯论文、唯帽子、唯职称、唯学历) and SCI supremacy. Key mandates: No SCI as precondition for jobs, rewards, graduations; classify evaluations – basic research by quality, applied by contributions; nurture domestic journals; cap publishing expenses.
Implementation varied: Tsinghua's 'representative works' system reviews 5 key outputs without counting papers or factors. Fudan's basic research zones allow 10-year pursuits sans routine checks. These foster 'bold exploration', per CAS academician Zhao Dongyuan.
CAS's 2026 APC Crackdown: Policy Details
On February 13, 2026, CAS notified staff: No central funds for APCs in high-fee OA journals. Threshold ~$5,000; affected: 30+ titles like Nature Communications ($5,700+), Science Advances ($4,500+ but rising), Cell Reports ($5,900). Hybrid journals (e.g., Nature) ok if paywalled. Also blocks 100+ 'integrity-problem' journals.
Effective March 2026, it optimizes funds, controls costs (tripled to $2.5B by 2023). Details via SCMP report.
Why Now? Reclaiming Research Sovereignty
China produces 20% global papers but lacks high-impact journals, ceding narrative control. Results 'made in China, priced abroad'. Reforms align with 15th Five-Year Plan (2026–2030): self-reliance, original innovation. Xi Jinping urged basic research push February 2026.
Scholars like Shi Yigong stress discourse power. New journal 'Vita' (June 2026, 15 top institutions) signals shift to rule-making.
University Adaptations and Case Studies
Nanjing U: Li Chuan promoted for solar probe, not papers. ShanghaiTech's Zhuyongxin: 'Exhausted by fees'. Reforms reduce 'layered solidification' – big teams dominate, youth sidelined.
- Tsinghua: Holistic review.
- Fudan: Long-term zones.
- Reforms cut misconduct, boost quality.
Boosting Domestic Journals and Alternatives
Plan: 400 top Chinese journals. Lower fees, faster review, cultural fit. Publishing domestically saves costs, accelerates impact. E.g., Tu Youyou's artemisinin delayed by lack of intl journals – domestic high-impact could speed Nobel.
Explore CAS reforms in this Guancha analysis (Chinese).
Global Reactions and Implications
Publishers face pressure; Stefanie Haustein predicts read-and-publish deals. Claudia Pagliari questions CAS leverage. China (top funder, 50k+ researchers) shifts market. West sees threat to OA model, but applauds curbing profiteering.
Impacts: Fairer global access, less burden on Global South. China focuses national needs, e.g., tech self-reliance.
Photo by Jorick Jing on Unsplash
Challenges Ahead and Future Outlook
Hurdles: Entrenched habits, intl prestige lure. Solutions: Peer incentives for domestic pubs, quality metrics beyond IF.
In 15th FYP, expect more: R&D record highs, commercialization push. Youth freed for innovation, not fees.
Actionable Insights for Researchers
- Prioritize impact over quantity.
- Explore Chinese OA journals.
- Hybrid options save costs.
- Collaborate domestically for faster eval.
This reform heralds equitable science, reclaiming China's voice.
.png&w=128&q=75)
