Understanding China's Latest Move in Research Publishing
China's research landscape is undergoing a significant transformation, with the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) leading the charge in a bold policy shift. Announced in early 2026, CAS has decided to halt reimbursements for article processing charges (APCs) in over 30 high-cost open access journals, effective March 1. This decision, rooted in a comprehensive report from the CAS National Science Library, signals a strategic pivot away from expensive foreign prestige publications toward more sustainable and equitable funding practices. For universities and researchers across China, this could reshape priorities, encouraging focus on quality over quantity in scientific output.
The policy targets journals charging APCs exceeding $5,000 per paper, such as Nature Communications at $7,350, Cell Reports at $5,790, and Science Advances at $5,450. These fees are substantially above the global average of around $3,000, as highlighted in the library's 2024 Global OA Journal and APC Monitoring Report. By curbing such expenditures, CAS aims to optimize limited research funds, allowing more resources for actual innovation rather than publication costs.
The Catalyst: CAS National Science Library's Eye-Opening Report
The CAS National Science Library's annual monitoring report for 2024 painted a stark picture of the open access (OA) publishing economy. Globally, OA journals generated over $3.166 billion in APC revenues, with Chinese authors contributing a whopping $909 million—up 22% from previous years. Chinese researchers published 313,500 OA papers, accounting for 30% of the world's total OA output, underscoring China's pivotal role in sustaining this model.
Yet, the report revealed inefficiencies: 79% of China's APC spending went to fully OA journals, many from mega-publishers like Springer Nature and MDPI. In China itself, 246 SCIE-indexed OA journals existed, but international ones dominated revenues. The average APC for Chinese OA journals was a more modest $2,372, prompting calls for domestic alternatives. This data fueled CAS's resolve to cap reimbursements, promoting 'reasonable' fees under $2,800 where possible.
Historical Context of Research Evaluation Reforms
This APC clampdown builds on China's decade-long crusade against 'SCI supremacy'—the overreliance on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals for evaluations. Since 2018, policies have banned cash bonuses for high-impact publications, shifted assessments to 'representative works,' and penalized quantity-driven metrics. Universities like Tsinghua and Peking have pioneered holistic evaluations, incorporating societal impact and data sharing.
In higher education, this has led to a surge in domestic journals and platforms like China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The reform addresses 'publish or perish' pressures that once saw researchers churning out papers for bonuses, sometimes compromising quality. Now, funding prioritizes breakthroughs with real-world applications, aligning with the 14th Five-Year Plan's innovation goals.
For context, CAS National Science Library has tracked these trends, advocating for diversified evaluation systems.
Details of the New Policy and Affected Journals
CAS's directive prohibits using academy or central government funds for APCs in blacklisted journals. While a full list isn't public, confirmed examples include Nature Communications, Science Advances, Cell Reports, and others from publishers like Springer Nature and Cell Press. An additional 120 journals face restrictions due to 'research integrity issues,' such as paper mill associations.
Researchers can still publish hybrid-style—opting for subscription access without APCs—or seek non-CAS funding. The threshold aligns with NIH discussions in the US, capping at $5,000-$6,000. This affects CAS's 50,000+ scientists across 100+ institutes, many affiliated with top universities like University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (UCAS).
Photo by Road Ahead on Unsplash
Financial Implications for Chinese Universities
Chinese universities, heavily reliant on NSFC and CAS grants, stand to save significantly. In 2024, NSFC alone saw APC spending rise 13%, with 65% on journals over $2,800. Annual savings could exceed tens of millions, redirectable to labs, talent recruitment, or infrastructure.
However, elite institutions like Peking University and Shanghai Jiao Tong University, with high international output, may feel short-term pain. Career progression often hinges on top-tier publications; without APC support, early-career faculty might pivot to lower-fee venues, potentially slowing global visibility gains.
Statistics from the report: China's OA expenditure hit 6.474 billion RMB ($909M), with publishers like MDPI earning $203M from Chinese authors alone. Science magazine reports this as a challenge to OA publishers' model.
Stakeholder Perspectives: Researchers Weigh In
Reactions among Chinese academics are polarized. Proponents applaud cost controls, arguing high APCs fund publisher profits (Elsevier's 37% margins) rather than science. One Tsinghua professor noted, "It's time to value impact over vanity metrics."
Critics, especially in competitive fields like biomedicine, fear reputational hits. A UCAS postdoc shared anonymously: "Nature Comm is a career booster; self-funding $7K is impossible on my salary." Publishers like Springer Nature defend fees as covering rigorous peer review and prestige.
Experts like Stefanie Haustein predict shifts to read-and-publish deals, while Claudia Pagliari calls it overdue, highlighting inequities for underfunded researchers.
Promoting Domestic and Affordable Alternatives
- Boosting Chinese OA journals: 246 SCIE-listed, avg APC $2,372, revenues $37M.
- Platforms like Open Journals China and SciOpen for low/no-fee publishing.
- University consortia for negotiated deals, mirroring Plan S in Europe.
- Preprints on ChinaXiv, integrated into evaluations.
Institutions are ramping up support: Fudan University launched a low-APC fund, while Zhejiang University encourages hybrid models. This fosters a vibrant ecosystem, with China aiming for 400 top domestic journals by 2030.
Global Ripples and Publisher Responses
CAS's move reverberates worldwide—China's 30% OA output makes it indispensable. Publishers may lower fees or offer waivers, as seen post-2018 reforms. NIH's APC cap deliberations cite this as precedent.
In China, it accelerates 'double first-class' university goals, prioritizing societal contributions. Early data shows reduced paper mills, improved integrity.
Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash
Challenges and Solutions Ahead
Challenges include equity for junior researchers and interdisciplinary fields needing visibility. Solutions: Expanded grants for APCs in 'reasonable' journals, AI-assisted evaluations, international collaborations.
Step-by-step adaptation: 1) Audit grant budgets; 2) Train on altmetrics; 3) Partner for diamond OA (no-fee OA).
Future Outlook for Chinese Higher Education
This reform positions China as a leader in sustainable science. By 2030, expect diversified evaluations, booming domestic journals, and funds fueling moonshots like quantum computing. Universities must adapt, fostering cultures valuing depth over metrics. For global academia, it's a wake-up: reform or risk losing China's engine.
In summary, CAS's APC policy is a pragmatic step toward efficient, impactful research funding in China's universities.
