China's Research Evaluation System Faces Fragmentation Amid Growing Array of Journal Oversight Tools
Chinese academics and university administrators are navigating an increasingly complex environment shaped by multiple overlapping journal evaluation mechanisms. Traditional reliance on the Journal Impact Factor has given way to a diverse set of lists designed to guide publishing decisions, curb misconduct, and promote domestic outlets. This shift reflects broader reforms in research assessment led by bodies such as the Ministry of Science and Technology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Institutions across the country now contend with national-level warnings alongside university-specific blacklists and endorsed domestic journal compilations. The result is a layered system that influences everything from tenure decisions to grant applications at leading universities including Tsinghua University, Peking University, and Fudan University.
Origins of the Early Warning Approach at the Chinese Academy of Sciences
The National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences introduced its Early Warning Journal List of International Journals in late 2020 as a trial measure. Updated annually since, the list identifies journals exhibiting risks such as high volumes of papers from Chinese authors combined with indicators of potential quality issues. Criteria encompass article volume, degree of international authorship, rejection rates, article processing charges, self-citation patterns, and retraction data.
The 2025 edition continues this focus on academic misconduct including citation manipulation and paper-mill activity, as well as practices that may hinder efficient use of publishing resources. Many Chinese universities have adopted or adapted elements of the CAS list when setting internal policies for faculty evaluation.
Proliferation Across Universities and Research Institutions
Beyond the national CAS framework, dozens of additional lists have emerged from individual universities, hospitals, and provincial bodies. Research documented in peer-reviewed analysis shows inconsistencies in criteria and scope even among lists issued within the same overarching state structures. Some lists emphasize retraction rates and misconduct signals, while others incorporate volume-based or cost-related thresholds.
This multiplicity creates practical challenges for researchers seeking clarity on acceptable outlets. At institutions such as Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Zhejiang University, internal guidelines may reference both the CAS warning list and locally compiled discouraged journals. The variation underscores tensions between centralized policy goals and localized implementation needs.
Complementary Endorsed Lists Promote Domestic Publishing
Alongside warning mechanisms, authorities have advanced positive lists to encourage publication in high-quality Chinese journals. The Chinese STM Journal Excellence Action Plan, supported by seven state ministries, exemplifies efforts to strengthen domestic scholarly communication channels. These endorsed compilations aim to balance international visibility with national research priorities.
University administrators report that such lists help redirect submissions toward outlets aligned with China's strategic goals in science and technology. This dual approach of discouragement and endorsement forms a core element of ongoing evaluation reforms.
Photo by Estée Janssens on Unsplash
Emergence of Alternative Metrics: The Dongbi Index
In March 2026, a new evaluation framework known as the Dongbi Index was unveiled for medical and life sciences journals. Developed by Shenzhen-based Dongbi Data in collaboration with the Institute of Medical Information and Library under the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the system analyzes citation quality through network structures rather than simple counts.
The index produced separate rankings covering more than 4,000 medical journals and over 3,000 life sciences titles selected from a global pool exceeding 40,000. Proponents describe it as a multidimensional tool centered on research quality, intended to reduce over-reliance on traditional impact measures and bolster China's influence in global academic discourse.
Policy Shifts Signal Move Away from Journal-Centric Rankings
A significant development occurred in March 2026 when the National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences announced it would cease updating and releasing its long-standing Journal Classification Table, also known as the CAS journal ranking or partition list. The 2025 edition marked the final official release after more than two decades of use.
Officials emphasized that future evaluation efforts would prioritize research quality, innovation, and societal impact over journal-based metrics. The decision aligns with national directives encouraging institutions to develop more nuanced assessment practices less dependent on any single ranking system.
Impacts on Researchers, Publishers, and Institutional Strategies
Evidence indicates measurable effects on submission patterns following the introduction of warning lists. Analyses show reduced submissions to flagged journals, with some open-access titles experiencing notable declines in Chinese-authored content. Publishers such as MDPI and others have seen shifts in regional output volumes.
For early-career researchers and PhD candidates, the landscape requires careful navigation when planning publication strategies. University career offices increasingly provide guidance on interpreting multiple lists, while grant reviewers at bodies like the National Natural Science Foundation of China may consider compliance with prevailing recommendations.
Stakeholder Perspectives on Benefits and Challenges
Supporters of the evolving system highlight improved safeguards against misconduct and better alignment with national research integrity goals. Critics point to potential over-correction that could limit exposure to high-visibility international outlets or create administrative burdens through list proliferation.
Administrators at research-intensive universities note the need for clearer harmonization across national and local lists to support consistent decision-making. International collaborators observe that Chinese researchers are adapting strategies to maintain global engagement while adhering to domestic guidelines.
Photo by Isaac Smith on Unsplash
Future Outlook for Scholarly Communication in China
As China continues refining its research evaluation framework, further evolution of alternative metrics and oversight tools appears likely. The discontinuation of the CAS ranking list and launch of the Dongbi Index illustrate a trajectory toward more sophisticated, quality-focused approaches.
Stakeholders anticipate ongoing dialogue between policymakers, universities, and the international publishing community to balance integrity, accessibility, and global competitiveness. Researchers are advised to stay informed through official channels from the Ministry of Science and Technology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences when planning submissions.
Practical Guidance for Academics and Administrators
University leaders are encouraged to develop transparent internal policies that reference authoritative national lists while allowing flexibility for disciplinary differences. Training programs on research integrity and publishing ethics can help faculty and students interpret warning signals effectively.
PhD-track scholars benefit from consulting multiple sources, including institutional libraries and career services, before targeting specific journals. Emphasis on research quality and societal relevance aligns with the direction of current reforms.
